Lists Home |
Date Index |
"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
> 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
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.