RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Proposal re REST and Arch doc
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok too, but it doesn't achieve what I want to achieve;
> documenting the *differences*.
> 
> Is that so controversial?

[not wearing chair hat]

I think it's controversial because it's not at all clear what the "Web
Architecture" is.  The most casual reading of the TAG list should disabuse
anyone who thinks that TimBL and Roy Fielding have it clear in their minds,
agree with each other, etc.  I'd prefer to factor out the commonalities, to
try to bridge the gaps between Web/REST and OMA/distributed objects.

Maybe some non-normative Note or Appendix on how what we ultimately come up
with differs from REST would be useful. But it has to, IMHO, be called
"REST" not "THE Web Architecture."  Reasonable people can disagree on how
closely REST theory matches Web practice.