Lists Home |
Date Index |
'11. Anyone should be able to write software to process a Web resource."
Anyone? Access rights, schema knowledge, all that comes to mind. That said, I'd say
anyone should be able to obtain the information required to process a web resource
if they have rights to that information. Otherwise, web services plainly don't work
as a business environment. But yes, anyone gets to ask.
"A key differentiating factor between the Web and most information systems that came before it is that anyone can, and many people do, write software to process data designed and produced by someone else.
I'm not convinced the argument offered supports the generality of the assertion.
"The Web" is no different than any export/import system. Syntax alone does not infer semantic
coherence, so the same set of problems any db implementor has apply to the web, and mostly, the
same solutions. The Web is just email for bots. This is not a differentiator. What makes the
Internet different is the scale of access. Otherwise, ODBC has more advantages for blind reuse,
"An advantage of descriptive markup - to my mind, the key advantage - is that it allows people to put data to use in ways not intended or envisioned by its creator."
I agree with the assertion about markup. This is a quality of markup, not "the web" whatever
that is. Namespaces don't make this possible. They just prevent name collisions if one
is pig-headed enough to create compound documents and exchange them blindly. It is the
perceived to exchange blindly that argues for namespace resolvability. I'm not convinced
we do that often and yet the whole set of theses collapses if we don't do that. Decoupling
instance and declaration (why XML beats SGML) sounds good, works OK, but why are so many
people working so hard to either keep DTDs or invent replacements?
A philosophy of an architecture should reflect the goal of the architecture. Maybe that
is what 11 states, the goal, but not just anyone can write software and all resources
are not equal. Otherwise, namespace resolution wouldn't be necessary.
From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
I have just posted some arguments about namespaces and
namespace documents as a contribution to TAG debate - I
suspect many here will be interested. See