• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:15:34 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C53FAA9.34570A48@p...>

1/27/2002 8:03:37 AM, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:

>
>And the issues are not always so abstract as relative URIs in
>namespaces. Recently there was an issue with a sort of abuse of HTTP 
in
>XForms. That was a web architecture issue which I believe will be
>resolved to everybody's satisfaction. Now that I think about it, the
>whole argument could probably have been short-circuited with a 
reference
>to this:
>
> * http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#state
>
>That's the benefit of architectural documents.

OK, I think we pretty much agree.  I was just a bit stuck on a case 
where appeals to "The Web Architecture" hindered progress (in the 
majority view, anyway).  

The Web (whatever it "is"!) came about through a strange mix of 
thoughtful design, industry politics, and evolution.  I like the 
image of separating the "calculus" from the "alchemy," and to do that 
we analyze the Web both analytically and pragmatically.   

• References:
  • Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality of HTTP)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality of HTTP)
• Next by Date: Re: Push and Pull?
• Previous by thread: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality of HTTP)
• Next by thread: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread