Adam Lassek wrote: > I welcome an alternative term if that would be less confusing, but the > fact is this convention exists and it's not a part of any > specification.
*What* convention? What do you think goes beyond the HTTP spec here? > > I chose microformat as a description because it's a conventional > extension of an existing standard, HTTP parameters, to carry extra > information e.g. nesting relationships. This is exactly the sort of > thing microformats do with XHTML. So what if we're embedding semantics > into a key/value string rather than XML? To me that's just an > implementation detail. Maybe, but the word "microformat" only refers to specific ways of abusing HTML/XML markup to add semantics. That's not an "implementation detail" -- it's a completely separate part of the problem domain. Anyway, the HTML microformat technique is not even remotely related to what we're doing here. We are not "embedding semantics into a key/value string". You're overthinking here -- it really is just the parameters as passed from the HTTP request. That's all there is to it, I think. If you don't think that explains everything, please state what you don't understand and I'll try to help. > > So I'm curious where this convention came from, and what precisely are > the rules involved? Is there documentation for it? What part don't you understand? What do you think needs to be documented? What are you really trying to find out here? Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
