RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

+1

jeff

At 01:31 PM 8/20/02, Dave Hollander wrote:

><non-chair-hat>
>
>+1
>
>For lots of people, REST does not equal THE WEB and convincing them
>that it does will not add value to our efforts. What will add value
>is documenting the different alternatives.
>
>As an non-normative note, it becomes even more useful because
>it then only needs to be clear and accurate, not carry consensus
>regarding our adopted architecture.
>
>DaveH
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Champion, Mike [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:15 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: 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.