[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Because anything truly new is also unrecognizable. It
will sit on the shelf while the insanely restless play
with it and adapt it. Over some period of time they
will get results that others will covet and emulate.
"To play with only this and that old hat is such a bore
But I sadly fear the love of the ear is to hear what it heard before."
-Songwriters Lament-
That is why marketing tends to dominate business, not
innovation. And no, there are no new observations
in that either.
Specifications should be designed for technologies
that are almost ready for commercialization. Standards
should be written for commercial technologies with
enough marketshare that public interests
are affected and therefore, require obligated controls.
The very fact of the URI-centric definition of the Web
is a sign that The Web is one of those "adapted to
its environment" technologies. The speculative issue
is whether that is a fitness trait. I should think
so but the nature of the competition within the
environment plays a role in determining that. In
effect, the web architecture of REST is a means
to constrain competition and restrict innovation
in the public interest. That is intelligent
adaptation (dharma: restrict choice in one
decision set to multiply choice (artha) in another).
Can anyone conceive of a change in the Internet
environment that would make that choice unfit?
What about for XML? What would have to happen
to make XML an unfit choice? What would have
to happen to make either more fit (not changes
to XML or URIs, but the environment in which
they are fielded)?
len
From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@acm.org]
On 20 May 2002 at 16:05, Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> Unofficial motto: "REST: Everything old is new again."
We could apply this to a number of things - including a three letter
acronym we all know and love.
|
