Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > He didn't say it wasn't possible, just that > it isn't HTTP. I think he meant, if you need > to push, there are better ways to do it. I can't claim that HTTP was the right thing in a requirements vacuum. All I can say is that most of the people I've met who think they know HTTP do not. > Umm... Daniel said something to Al about > being "the last UDP holdout" or somesuch. > It just ain't so. Lotsa protocols, some > better suited for some things than others. > HTTP seems to be the most mediocre and > for some reason, people like that, probably > the same people who like The Eagles. How is it mediocre? Now that I'm coming to understand it, I think it's brilliant. > Quake players think they are on The Web. So Quake is a web browser? I guess I'll have to agree to disagree. > So, URIs are The Web? Great. The W3C and > the TAG are done, unnecessary, finis, free > to go home and play with their babies. The > Web is at it's fullllllllllll potential. URIs are the defining characteristic for the web. Everything else is conventions for using them properly. Unfortunately, developing these conventions is a never-ending task. > There Ain't No The Web. Just parts and > assemblies. How is "the Internet" different? The Internet has an addressing scheme and a set of protocols (with IP being the most important). The Web has an addressing scheme and a set of protocols (with HTTP being the most important). Same thing. Paul Prescod
|
