Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-fiql-00.txt

[Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>]

On 19/12/2007, at 10:14 AM, Hugh Winkler wrote:
> I'm uncomfortable with prescribing how to construct URIs (sec. 4),
> aren't you?

Why? HTML forms does it, and they're pretty successful.

> It takes control of the URI namespace away from the
> server.

Just as with forms, this only specifies a format that's meaningful if  
the server chooses to use it; it doesn't foist itself upon the URL.

> You can get the effect you want by POSTing an entity
> containing the FIQL string (give it mime type application/fiql say)
> and allowing the server to respond directly with the result, or return
> 303 to the URI of a cacheable representation. Let the server construct
> the URI.

POSTing a query works, but for whatever reason, people don't like the  
added step. The draft doesn't rule that out, of course, but most  
people will want to put it in a URI; it's up to the server to decide  
how it wants to do it. It would make sense to define a media type for  
a FIQL query if people want to do this, though; I'll add that to the  
next draft.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/