You make a fair point, and your patch does work.
I wonder if you'd be willing to submit the patch to the github project
cited below, for purposes of discussion there if nothing else.
Perhaps the spec and the required implementation drifted over time?
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Jason Erickson <jason_at_jasonerickson.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I'm not as familiar with the W3C spec as you are, but it seems to me that if
> you have different representations supporting different parameters (as you
> almost certainly would if you had POST that accepted either
> "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" or "application/json" in the
> Content-Type header) that siblings wouldn't be sufficient to express that.
>
> Anyway, I just ran across this same problem and I modified the XSL
> stylesheet to handle it. It didn't even occur to me that it was a bug in
> the WADL. Anyway, I've attached a patch file for the XSL if you want to use
> it.
>
>
> On 3/6/2011 9:15 AM, Mark Petrovic wrote:
>>
>> cannot be correctly parsed by the Nottingham WADL stylesheets. The
>> Form entity parameters (accountnumber, etc.) are missing from the html
>> representation the stylesheet is supposed to produce.
>>
>> https://github.com/mnot/wadl_stylesheets
>>
>> I assume the reason is that the Nottingham stylesheet conforms to this
>> W3C specfication for<method> definitions
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/wadl/#x3-170002.8.2
>>
>> Specifically, in the<request> element,<param>'s are not supposed to
>> be children of<representation>; they are peers of<representation>.
>> Both<param> and<representation> are supposed to be children of
>> <request>.
>>
>>
>
>
--
Mark