2 ms·

I don't get what your quibble is. > The idea that REST is confined to standard media types[...] is wrong You sourced the response yourself: > REST components

• ivan_gammel 3y ago
  „Standard media type” has different meaning in the comment you refer to and in the quote.
  • cxr 3y ago
    This is not a very helpful response.
    • ivan_gammel 3y ago
      You reference a comment that basically says that REST is HTML UI talking to server via links and forms, rather than interaction with JSON or XML-based API. This is not correct, neither according to original dissertation nor according to modern understanding of RMM 3 APIs. API using JSON can support HATEOAS. Standard media type in the sense of REST is not the W3C media type, but anything that both server and client can understand. appilcation/hal+json is a good example.
      • cxr 3y ago
        Nope. Try again. It "basically" says what it says—which is the same thing that the part you quoted from Fielding says—and nowhere does it say that the media type has to be HTML, which is what you (now) seem to be implying (but are unable or unwilling to articulate for some reason).
        • ivan_gammel 3y ago
          How exactly do you understand the following quote that is part of what you call a „good explanation“? > REST is about completely decoupling the client and server (in terms of prior knowledge) beyond standardized media types (HTML, CSS, JS)
          • cxr 3y ago
            I understand it the way it's written. I don't know what you're looking for here; jcrites is not staying that { HTML, CSS, JS } are prerequisites to REST. They're giving examples of standard media types. If there are other media types for which it is possible to do REST, then those are acceptable, too, of course. But HTML is not a requirement.
      • whstl 3y ago
        The comment you're complaining about says "beyond standardized media types (HTML, CSS, JS)". "Beyond" in this case means "not only".