3 ms·

I'm old enough to remember WML which was a mobile non-HTML hypermedia standard. I enjoyed using it but it was obvious putting an HTML browser on a phone was al

I'm old enough to remember WML which was a mobile non-HTML hypermedia standard. I enjoyed using it but it was obvious putting an HTML browser on a phone was always going to win out. Hyperview isn't that interesting because it's a non-standard proprietary technology that isn't really "on the web". So you either have something like that, an actual full-featured HTML browser, or have something consuming a fully defined JSON API. It doesn't feel like there's anything interesting about non-HTML user agents on the web. HTML automatically makes them all irrelevant.

recursivedoubts 4y ago
hyperview is a hypermedia that exposes native mobile features directly within the hypermedia you wouldn't create an internet out of hyperview-apps, rather it is a way for you, a developer of a mobile application, to get the benefits of a hypermedia approach (e.g. versioning becoming much less of an issue, vs. app-store updates) while not giving up on native mobile behavior it is open source, and I think it's one of the most innovative uses of hypermedia I've seen in the last decade: https://github.com/instawork/hyperview https://github.com/instawork/hyperview
- wvenable 4y ago
  It's an app builder not a hypermedia client. It's a pretty slight semantic difference but when we're talking about REST APIs for 3rd party clients then hyperview isn't really relevant to the discussion.
  - recursivedoubts 4y ago
    I don't see how you can say it isn't a hypermedia client: it is a client that interprets hypermedia, just like the canonical hypermedia client, a web browser. It's not an internet hypermedia client like a browser, with general access to a broad network of different sites/applications, but the core mechanic satisfies REST and the format being transferred is a hypermedia.
    - wvenable 4y ago
      Because it's doesn't have general access to a broad network of different sites/applications it's not a hypermedia client. It's a client for a single service that uses hypermedia is an implementation detail. An HTML client that can only view Facebook is not a browser, it's a Facebook client. The point of the article is about how REST should contain all the information needed to traverse a service. But hyperview is for a building a single client/server application where the developers always know the entire interface. So that is the way that it's irrelevant to the discussion.
      - recursivedoubts 4y ago
        I dunno man, I don't see anything about "a broad network of different sites" requirement here: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_7 https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arc... A hyperview-based application has the exact same defining characteristic of a RESTful web application: there is a single URL that is entered, and beyond that all actions are afforded through hypermedia controls. All the information needed to traverse the service is encoded in responses, and no knowledge of the entire interface is needed by the client. Seems relevant to me. I certainly agree it isn't a general purpose browser, but web browsers are only an instance of a hypermedia client, not the definition of one.
        wvenable 4y ago
        If, instead of text markup, the server just sent an image of the entire UI remote-desktop style how would it be any different? You could still have a single URL that is entered, all information needed to traverse the service can be encoded in the request/responses, and no knowledge of the entire interface is needed by the client. But we have diverged pretty far from the point. Software clients using REST APIs cannot use the self-describing nature of REST so to claim they're all using it incorrectly I don't believe is a valid criticism. Browser-like clients, and you can include hyperview in that, can use the self-describing nature because they're pushing all the understanding to the user. But that is such a niche experience (outside of HTML browsers) that it isn't even worth discussing. For hyperview, it's not consuming generic REST APIs -- it's just acting as mobile-specific browser for a single service. That's why I said it's not really interesting.

recursivedoubts 4y ago

hyperview is a hypermedia that exposes native mobile features directly within the hypermedia you wouldn't create an internet out of hyperview-apps, rather it is a way for you, a developer of a mobile application, to get the benefits of a hypermedia approach (e.g. versioning becoming much less of an issue, vs. app-store updates) while not giving up on native mobile behavior it is open source, and I think it's one of the most innovative uses of hypermedia I've seen in the last decade: https://github.com/instawork/hyperview https://github.com/instawork/hyperview

wvenable 4y ago
It's an app builder not a hypermedia client. It's a pretty slight semantic difference but when we're talking about REST APIs for 3rd party clients then hyperview isn't really relevant to the discussion.
- recursivedoubts 4y ago
  I don't see how you can say it isn't a hypermedia client: it is a client that interprets hypermedia, just like the canonical hypermedia client, a web browser. It's not an internet hypermedia client like a browser, with general access to a broad network of different sites/applications, but the core mechanic satisfies REST and the format being transferred is a hypermedia.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    Because it's doesn't have general access to a broad network of different sites/applications it's not a hypermedia client. It's a client for a single service that uses hypermedia is an implementation detail. An HTML client that can only view Facebook is not a browser, it's a Facebook client. The point of the article is about how REST should contain all the information needed to traverse a service. But hyperview is for a building a single client/server application where the developers always know the entire interface. So that is the way that it's irrelevant to the discussion.
    - recursivedoubts 4y ago
      I dunno man, I don't see anything about "a broad network of different sites" requirement here: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_7 https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arc... A hyperview-based application has the exact same defining characteristic of a RESTful web application: there is a single URL that is entered, and beyond that all actions are afforded through hypermedia controls. All the information needed to traverse the service is encoded in responses, and no knowledge of the entire interface is needed by the client. Seems relevant to me. I certainly agree it isn't a general purpose browser, but web browsers are only an instance of a hypermedia client, not the definition of one.
      - wvenable 4y ago
        If, instead of text markup, the server just sent an image of the entire UI remote-desktop style how would it be any different? You could still have a single URL that is entered, all information needed to traverse the service can be encoded in the request/responses, and no knowledge of the entire interface is needed by the client. But we have diverged pretty far from the point. Software clients using REST APIs cannot use the self-describing nature of REST so to claim they're all using it incorrectly I don't believe is a valid criticism. Browser-like clients, and you can include hyperview in that, can use the self-describing nature because they're pushing all the understanding to the user. But that is such a niche experience (outside of HTML browsers) that it isn't even worth discussing. For hyperview, it's not consuming generic REST APIs -- it's just acting as mobile-specific browser for a single service. That's why I said it's not really interesting.