[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
paul@prescod.net (Paul Prescod) writes:
>What _I_ would claim is that when you build an information system (like
>the Web) you must choose a set of principles that will hold common for
>all objects in that system. COM has such a set of principles. Java has
>such a set. The TAG's job is to define those principles for the Web. If
>you deny them the right to exclude you deny them the ability to
>succeed.
Given that the TAG has refused to recognize any boundaries for the Web,
I think that may be a necessary failure. In "traditional Web" practice,
I think the URI:resource->representations story works just fine.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this delusion that things which work
fine in RFC 2616 can be abstracted to larger projects which have nothing
whatsoever to do with RFC 2616 practice. Those very different projects
need to have their own design methodologies, and instead they appear to
have weirdly hijacked what worked on the traditional Web and thrown it
into new contexts where it is confusing and ultimately laughable.
At this point, I'm not waiting for any success on the part of the TAG
that will sweep the real world under the carpet in favor of an
ever-expanding and ever more disconnected 'Web'.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
