[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Generality of HTTP

• To: 'David Orchard' <david.orchard@b...>, 'Paul Prescod' <paul@p...>
• Subject: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:52:08 -0600
• Cc: 'The Deviants' <xml-dev@l...>

I'd agree with 5 also except that realistically, 
I have to include other file formats such as 
PDF and VRML97.  Of course, VRML will now include 
an XML encoding (X3D) so that joins the markup 
family in the same way as SVG.

On the other hand, it's just the Internet now. 
Journalists starting dropping WWW from their 
articles a few years ago and "web" has become 
synonymous with "Internet" although that is  
not very accurate.

Hmm... Boltzman outs again.  We can refer to 
so many things with one term, the term loses 
meaning. That may be another outcome of the 
network effect.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:david.orchard@b...]

> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]

> Would the web still be the web without HTTP?

Fascinating question.  Is the web identified by protocols, formats,
identifiers, or some combination?  Is the web:

1) HTML, URLs, HTTP?
2) XML and HTML, URLs, HTTP
3) XML, URLs, HTTP
4) XML, URIs
5) XML and HTML, URIs
6) URIs

or some other combinations?

I tend to personally think the web is #5 and it typically uses HTTP.

If I build an RDF application using URIs and I use gnutella/tcp to
distribute it, is it part of the web?
If I build a SOAP document and ship it via SMTP, is it part of the web?

• Prev by Date: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by Date: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Previous by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread