Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Monday 11 February 2002 01:52 pm, Paul Prescod wrote:
> Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 12:40, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > > REST doesn't adore HTTP. It's the other way around. HTTP 1.1 was
> > > designed as a protocol for REST. ;)
> > Even Roy doesn't claim this. He claims that HTTP 1.1 was *guided*
> > by REST.
> These distinctions are getting too fine for me to cut with my
> kitchen knives and I've misplaced my laser. REST is the architecture
> he wanted to implement. HTTP is the protocol he designed to do so.
Paul, we're going to get into the same debate again... Roy did not
design HTTP. He didn't design it for REST or as an instance of REST.
Roy helped *standardize* HTTP, which was designed by Tim BL, and
extended with the help of others. He played a (significant) role in
HTTP evolution, especially for HTTP 1.1. He claims he used REST (not
clearly defined as such until later) as a guide for the work *he* did.
This is all fairly clearly written in his thesis.
Your statements that "HTTP 1.1 was designed as a protocol for REST"
and "HTTP is the protocol he designed...." are both historically
inaccurate.... and again, smell like self-serving revisionism. I have
stayed out of this, but these kinds of statements cannot be left
unchecked. You sound like the folk that called Goldfarb "The Father of
XML", which I was equally offended by (though he has legitimate claims
to being a grandfather, and the GML trio as being great-grandfathers
Please be a little more careful in your claims.... so we can judge
*objectively* the value of REST over HTTP vs SOAP vs BEEP etc. You
claim you value precision... let's see it in your claims.
>Still, the cost/benefit of inventing ANOTHER REST protocol
>would probably not pan out, especially considering how extensible HTTP
Have you considered doing so? Seems to me that BEEP would do rather
well as part of an implementation of the REST architecture...
certainly no worse than HTTP.