I wonder when the time will come when putting "API version numbers" into URIs will feel as wrong to everyone as using GET unsafely does
6
18
8
@stilkov probably never because versioning an API is a reasonable thing to do.
4
@bitworking "probably never because versioning an API is a reasonable thing to do" +1 /cc @stilkov
1
1
@sallamar Interesting, wouldn't have expected that you agree
2
@stilkov maybe defining what "versioning" is supposed to mean would help. a breaking change (new #URI ok) or a feature-adding extension?
1
@dret @bitworking @stilkov actually the markup web that we like apps to mimic has been doing in place tweaks and new URIs just fine.
1
@sallamar @bitworking @stilkov in-place tweaks for feature-adding HTML upgrades, and new URIs for shiny new media types, right?
1
@dret no. I mean new Uris for "my new v2 site", not media types. The web is what it is today for its interop. We mustn't forget that.
3
Replying to @sallamar
@sallamar @dret Best to do neither, and add instead of changing

Dec 7, 2012 · 6:11 AM UTC

1
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov unless you can add without changing the basic semantics because of compatibility-by-design, of course... /cc @sallamar
1
@dret @sallamar Exactly. Add additional resource, link to it from the spot intended for that purpose. A no-versioning kind of versioning.