It was getting a little long in the tooth, especially now that HTML5 has come along and made HTML far more beautiful than even XHTML 1.1 was.
I pushed a (very simple) Rails app up to Heroku, the build was successful and it works online (minus some route issues), but now I can't get it to run locally. I have a controller that I use to search through records in Categories model based on name field, while editing my Item.You might believe you can talk people out of using WADL that way, but I doubt it; people will see XML Schema and will automatically look for the code generation button. The second cultural hurdle is the implicit assumption that all useful data will be in the form of XML, which ignores the vast amount of non-XML content on the web today, which, outside of RSS and Atom, is all of it (HTML, CSS, Java Script, podcasts, videos, JSON, etc.). Here is the very first example in the WADL specification: That's an Open Search document, that also describes a search interface. By reading that spec you know how to construct search queries.Do I really need to bring up the painful memories of binary content and SOAP? When I get a WADL document it might describe anything, from how to construct a search, to the APP, to JEP, to XML-RPC.Everybody's atwitter about WADL, a description file for REST services, and since it's supposed to be RESTful I regularly get questioned about it. The idea that you could get anything useful from machine generated code is, to me, interesting.For this post I'm going to experiment and adopt Stephen O'Grady's Q&A style. If I describe an Atom Syndication Feed in WADL, how close will the generated code be to a feed reader like Bloglines? If I write a really good WADL for (X)HTML how close will the generated code be to a web browser?