Lists Home |
Date Index |
6/12/2002 1:00:13 PM, "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com> wrote:
>I don't see victory here. I see people weary of argument who are more or
>less agreeing on the least possible set of items in order to get on with
>the work they plan to do anyway.
I honestly think that this underestimates the fine work that Paul Prescod
and others have done to evangelize REST, the importance of specifying
services as URIs, integrating with the rest of the Web, etc. The actual
humans in the W3C working groups have generally come quite a long way in
the last two months. What might look like a wishy-washy compromise
really does level the playing field, and gives vendors a transition
plan from "RPC everywhere" to "REST whereever it really works better."
>We've tried this at the Web Standards Project. My continual frustration at
>the uselessness of such tactics and the W3C's refusal to "demand" anything
>led me to wander away to places where I could more bluntly state my
Fair enough ... but so what if the W3C did "demand" something? How much more
clearly could it "demand" valid HTML 4 and/or XHTML than it does? How much
good has that demand done? Suppose it drummed vendors who support legacy
HTML fixups (or mindless SOAP-RPC) out of the organization?
(That is almost literally unthinkable, since the W3C is after all
a vendor consortium ....). What, realistically, could it do?
>it's worth laying out the trenches
>and settling in for a very long guerilla battle to come.
I sympathize ... but who is the "enemy" ? Anyway, victory will come from
SHOWing people how much cheaper and cleaner and better a RESTful application
of XML (with or without SOAP) can be, not getting some authority to