Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rich Salz wrote: > >... > > > > 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. That's why it doesn't matter much, but does matter a little. When I see a query URI I am going to either ask you for the schema so I can generate my own queries or not bother and just figure out the schema based upon my common sense. That's what I do when I see a query URI. Whereas, when I see a hierarchical URI, I am supposed to treat it as opaque (or at the very least *hierarchical* as opposed to as a query). -- Come discuss XML and REST web services at: Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
|
