Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Generality of HTTP
 On Friday 25 January 2002 04:41 pm, Paul Prescod wrote: > All I can say is that most of the people I've met who think > they know HTTP do not. This is probably true. I also think that a lot of people claiming great things for HTTP are claiming more than it was intended for... and fail to see that HTTP+a set of application/URI-space semantics isn't the same as HTTP itself. HTTP is a very general protocol, but again generality isn't the same as general applicability. I find an ironic example of when I've been guilty of something similar. Many moons ago, I tried to get rid of the URL-encoding bogosity on GET submissions from forms, because from an I18N perspective (and for other reasons), it is abhorrent at best. HTTP did (and last time I looked still did, though I'm fuzzy on HTTP 1.1 now) support an entity body. My thought was to use that instead... as you could make it I18N safe etc. I was told, in no uncertain terms that "HTTP doesn't do that", "servers don't do that", "even though it's allowed, it's not correct usage", etc. I think saying that HTTP can do broadcast is roughly akin to this. > How is it mediocre? Now that I'm coming to understand it, I think > it's brilliant. Don't confuse the original HTTP with what you see you can do with it. > URIs are the defining characteristic for the web. .... >How is "the Internet" different? Len's point is that they're now equivalent. The web as a term now is mostly meaningful to those that care to make a distinction (technologists). 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
