[H]ere is my defence of WADL, called “It’s Just a Hypermedia Format”. Sometimes people say they’d like to do strange things with WADL, things I don’t approve of and things they wouldn’t think of doing with HTML. But WADL is just a hypermedia format. I like WADL because it’s a better hypermedia format than HTML or plain XML.
Excellent stuff; having someone like Leonard write about REST is a great addition to the REST community, IMO. I have one disagreement:
I’d like to try a system where sending OPTIONS to a URI gets you a hypermedia description of that resource, and see where that goes.
Why not use GET?
“Why not use GET?” you say. What would that GET request look like? Would it contain some pixie dust in the Accept header, or perhaps in the URI? How will the server know from the GET request that the client wants the hypermedia description?