Re: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

Rather than a section on standard orthodoxies and heresies, it may be 
better to have a section that highlights the `input base' ideas that the 
WSA draws from. That way, you can point out the inheritances from REST, 
OMA etc. in a way that isn't threatening.

Frank

On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 11:04  AM, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> Geoff,
>
> I'm all for other names for the section, but I think that adding
> additional architectures is quite an additional burden on the group.
> We have a specific charter directive to "integrate cleanly" with Web
> architecture, which is why I think keeping this section focused on it
> would be healthy.
>
> If the group wants to take on that extra effort, that's fine with me,
> and I would even be happy to help out.  But it is a substantial amount
> of work.
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 01:41:01PM -0400, Geoff Arnold wrote:
>> is orthodoxy, let's document some tolerated heresies". How
>> about entitling the section "Alternative Interaction State
>> Paradigms" (ah, that lovely weasel-word!), with at least four
>> subsections:
>> - REST
>> - OMA
>> - Asynchronous/dynamic
>> - Other
>>
>> And before you protest that we haven't clearly identified what might
>> go into the third or fourth section, I believe that this omission
>> will be
>> shortly corrected. In the mean time, I'd like to drive a stake into the
>> ground for a multiplicity of ideas - not just REST and "deviations".
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               [email protected]
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>