Mark and Sam point
out that I was wrong to say that Google maps did not have URIs for each
map block. My mistake; I stand corrected. I do have a question for Sam: Did you figure out that lovely URI "...
Like Asbjørn, I don’t consider that URI lovely, but on the other hand, I don’t consider it completely wrong. The URI query syntax has a specific meaning for CGI applications, and HTML forms have built in support for it, but I somehow doubt that Google is using a CGI here, nor does the typical interface to this data use forms. *shrug*
As to the question about how I figured this URI out, it actually is rather simple: I merely zoomed into the desired location, and then (with FireFox), I clicked with my right mouse button. The first option, View Image, was exactly what I needed to isolate that image; I then simply copied the URI from the address bar into my post.
Now, it is a pity that Sanjiva’s blog doesn’t support comments, so I’ll continue my response here.
If you got it by intercepting the messages then I’d argue that its not sufficiently RESTful.
Arguably, that’s exactly what I did, albeit augmented by a tool. A tool that isn’t “Google maps aware”, or even “schema aware”. Instead it is aware of one thing that often tends to be vastly more important, namely that one often finds important hypertext links embedded inside of content.
So here I differ with Sanjiva. This knowledge doesn’t make either Google maps or Firefox “not sufficiently RESTful”. To the contrary, I’d argue that hypermedia as the engine of application state is one of the defining characteristics of a preeminently RESTful application.
This knowledge doesn’t make either Google maps or Firefox “not sufficiently RESTful”. To the contrary, I’d argue that hypermedia as the engine of application state is one of the defining characteristics of a preeminently RESTful application....