Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This intrigued me:

> Don’t even get me started about URL parameters. No, not querystrings – there was originally a specification where you could do something like “/key1:value1/key2:value2/” to pass data into a request.

I couldn't find a specification, but I did find [1] which led to [2], both of which indicate that there's an idea of parameters within the URL hierarchy itself. It seems to me that it could be useful for API versioning at least.

As to the article itself, I completely agree. The problem is, though, that there's just not enough incentive for folks to actually use the Web standards suite the way (I want to believe) it was meant to be used. How much would cost to make a fully-semantic, JavaScript-extended (but not -requiring), machine-usable website which is also adaptive and beautiful and appealing to humans? And how much benefit would one realise?

Rather than do things the Right Way, folks just hack through and do it A Way, and get on with life. I wish that it weren't so, I truly do, but it is. At this point, railing against it feels like railing against the tides.

[1] http://doriantaylor.com/policy/http-url-path-parameter-synta...

[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.3



API versioning should be done with a HTTP Header.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: