[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
> Dare wrote:
> > URI: Either of the above.
>
> Paul Prescod had an excellent slide in the REST presentation he gave at
> OSCON and Extreme Markup. He asked what the Web would look like if it
> had been defined by vendors, and he suspected that it would have
> multiple addressing schemes - covering things like Lotus Notes,
> Blackbird, etc.
>
> He put forward the suggestion that the Web is superior because it has
> one approach to addressing: URIs.
The PowerPoint is here:
* http://www.prescod.net/rest/soap_rest_short.ppt
The paper that addresses this issue is here:
* http://www.prescod.net/rest/rest_vs_soap_overview/
The specific part on this issue of vendor goals at odds with
interoperability is here:
* http://www.prescod.net/rest/rest_vs_soap_overview/#section_4.4
> I tend to look at URIs and see a unified syntax but far too many
> underlying schemes. Slapping a label on a technology and calling it
> unified doesn't do much to genuinely unify it.
There are actually relatively few widely deployed URI schemes. Every day
there is a proposal for a new one but the HTTP transport truck just
keeps rolling over them. Some will see this as a bad thing but I see it
as the key thing that keeps the Web unified.
--
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.
|
