Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Mark Baker) writes:
>RFC 3205 describes the dangers of *misusing* HTTP, not the problems of
>using it as was intended (or in approximation to that). When I
>recommend that somebody use HTTP, I do it suggesting they use HTTP as
>was intended, since in most (not all) cases, that's sufficient. Plus
>it's always the most valuable thing to do, as it integrates that
>system into the Web.
For a sufficiently generous interpretation of "as was intended", I
suppose you can get REST through. I still wonder about REST in relation
to sections 2.4, 2.5, 3, and 4, once HTTP is used outside of the
user-controlled browser environment.
>Sure, but [BEEP] punts on the most important part of application
>protocol design; the application semantics.
That's what a lot of people have said about XML. I'm still not worried.
>HTTP gives you those, and it lets you use XML.
HTTP gives you a small set of verbs for application semantics. If you
like HTTP's verbs, great. If you just want to send messages, HTTP's
verbs may not be interesting. If you want more verbs than HTTP has -
risky to be sure but appropriate in some environments - you also need to
"Lets you use XML" is not much of an issue these days.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org