Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Use of XML, Javascript, Java and perhaps even RDF are assumed for XIS as I read the mail on this topic. But these technologies are not "The Web". The message quoted David Orchard writing to Fielding: "David Orchard wrote: > I think you are saying that if > people want to create object-specific interfaces using URIs, XML, HTTP, then > they shouldn't call it anything to do with the web. More like "XML Internet > Services" or something like that. That the notion of a shared information > space with well-defined interfaces is core to the web. Not usage of URIs, > HTTP, Markup. Those are helpful and interesting and good practice and .... > but not core to the web. I agree. The REST debate comes down to what one considers "The Web". The rest is The Internet. If someone wants to provide services based on a non-REST architecture, and those who get to decide the inclusion and exclusion of technical features and goals that will define the architectural boundaries of "The Web" are the TAG, then the other architectures will not, de jure, be "The Web" and should rename their own architectures and products built for them. The people named chose to be the owners of the definitions of The Web. Others choose differently. The only thing we get out of stuffing 50 pounds of mud into a five pound bag is a mess on the floor or Dolly Parton's [expletive deleted]. Definitions that try to do too much always create a messy foundation or stick out all over the place. len -----Original Message----- From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > Roy is right about it not being "The Web". > They should be XML Internet Services (XIS). > > As far as Roy, TimBL, and the w3c lot are > concerned, they invented "The Web", they > own "The Web" and anything not of their making > or design can't use that name. I think that's an uncharitable misrepresentation. They didn't invent XML, Javascript, Java or even RDF. Yet I'm sure they would all agree that those are important web technologies. Many important web technologies are not even standardized at the W3C. (e.g. WebDAV) It takes effort to read about the web's architectural principles and try to determine what technologies fit within the architecture and do not. Most people don't want to go through that effort. It is easier to sit back and play semantic games. But it is is precisely the TAG's job to enumerate those architectural principles and figure out which technologies fit the Web architecture and which do not, just as the IETF must determine what technologies work the Internet way and which do not. If they do do their job then they will be accused of being exclusionary purists. If they don't, they simply won't accomplish anything.
|
