[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Use of XML, Javascript, Java and perhaps
even RDF are assumed for XIS as I read the
mail on this topic. But these technologies
are not "The Web". The message quoted
David Orchard writing to Fielding:
"David Orchard wrote:
> I think you are saying that if
> people want to create object-specific interfaces using URIs, XML, HTTP, then
> they shouldn't call it anything to do with the web. More like "XML Internet
> Services" or something like that. That the notion of a shared information
> space with well-defined interfaces is core to the web. Not usage of URIs,
> HTTP, Markup. Those are helpful and interesting and good practice and ....
> but not core to the web.
I agree.
The REST debate comes down to what one considers "The Web". The
rest is The Internet. If someone wants to provide services based
on a non-REST architecture, and those who get to decide the inclusion
and exclusion of technical features and goals that will define
the architectural boundaries of "The Web" are the TAG, then
the other architectures will not, de jure, be "The Web" and
should rename their own architectures and products built for
them. The people named chose to be the owners of the
definitions of The Web. Others choose differently.
The only thing we get out of stuffing 50 pounds of mud into
a five pound bag is a mess on the floor or Dolly Parton's tits.
Definitions that try to do too much always create a messy
foundation or stick out all over the place.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> Roy is right about it not being "The Web".
> They should be XML Internet Services (XIS).
>
> As far as Roy, TimBL, and the w3c lot are
> concerned, they invented "The Web", they
> own "The Web" and anything not of their making
> or design can't use that name.
I think that's an uncharitable misrepresentation. They didn't invent
XML, Javascript, Java or even RDF. Yet I'm sure they would all agree
that those are important web technologies. Many important web
technologies are not even standardized at the W3C. (e.g. WebDAV)
It takes effort to read about the web's architectural principles and try
to determine what technologies fit within the architecture and do not.
Most people don't want to go through that effort. It is easier to sit
back and play semantic games. But it is is precisely the TAG's job to
enumerate those architectural principles and figure out which
technologies fit the Web architecture and which do not, just as the IETF
must determine what technologies work the Internet way and which do not.
If they do do their job then they will be accused of being exclusionary
purists. If they don't, they simply won't accomplish anything.
|
