Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> [I'll jump in because I'm interested in understanding Rich's security > question. He's posed it to me before and I must not have understood it > then either.] That seems to be living under a separate thread, so I won't discuss it here. >>3. I don't understand the rationale for principal #2; what's the >>reason to prefer one of these three? >> .../parts/345 >> ../part?234 >> ../part?id=345 >>Yes, I removed the "get" word; once I do that, what's the issue? > > > Practically, there is probably not much of a difference. > > But, the first is a reference to a resource. The latter two are queries > and (arguably) not resources in their own right. Queries have slightly > different semantics. For instance, queries are constructed by the client > whereas normal hierarchical URIs should be treated as opaque. Queries *can* be constructed by the client, but they needn't be. I can certainly have "query-string URL's" embedded in my documents. In fact, in order for a client to construct a query, it needs external schema information: the field names. /r$
|
