[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 13:18, Joe Gregorio wrote:
> Peter Rodgers wrote:
> > There's sporadic discussion of Atom here which I don't have time to
> > track fully. But I had to get these thoughts on the Atom API off my
> > chest. They've been stewing for a while...
> >
> > http://www.1060.org/blogxter/entry?publicid=7C88E1D0B72BD62EDED670A9EAA4C14E
>
> If you have real concerns about Atom and the
> AtomAPI then maybe you should consider submitting them to
> the atom-syntax mailing list[1].
>
> Thanks,
> -joe
>
> [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/
Hi Joe
I was in a provocative mood this morning I guess. I think Atom is a
great piece of work. What I was hoping to suggest is that it is great
in the context of how we perceive the web and the service models of the
web ie REST is best, HTTP is everything.
I believe we need to broaden our view out from the presentational Web
and take the Web (or, if you will, XML messaging) to the other channels
- that's it. I've tried to present this perspective in a document.
http://1060research-server-1.co.uk/docs/latest/docxter/doc_Net_Kernel_Principles_and_Philosophy.html
In this paper I suggest that XML is the dominant characteristic of what
we call the "web". I suggest that the current frenetic attempts by
industry to cash in on "Web-services" almost entirely miss the point. I
offer that the presentational web application is the original
Web-service and that new service models need to be backwards compatible
with it.
Lastly, my concerns on security become most valid if an application
protocol seeks to provide a genuine transport independent abstraction.
Pete
PS Apologies if this forum is not appropriate. I can only keep an eye
on so many lists at once and I'm aware that Atom is a continuing topic
of discussion here, and I'm sure the wider discussion is worth having
here.
|
