RE: Reducing complexity

+1.

Sorry. I think this little flame war was my fault again. I'll try not to let
Mark bait me again.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:24 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Reducing complexity
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:30 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Reducing complexity
> >
> >
>
> > That's wrong, but I think I understand why you believe it so.  Correct
> > me if I'm wrong, but it's because you don't believe that GET and POST
> > (and all HTTP methods and extension methods), are application methods,
> > the same as GetLastTradePrice.
> >
> > Well, whether or not you believe it, they are application methods.
> > That's a *fact*.
>
> We might as well be arguing about the true nature of the Trinity, or the
> true heirs of the Prophet, or [pick your favorite bloody
> religious dispute].
> This is not about truth, it's about belief systems.  Let's PLEASE PLEASE
> stay away from the "HTTP is an application protocol not a transport
> protocol" issue.  Mark, if you want the TAG to slap WSA's wrists about it,
> go for it!  [But wear your flamesuit when you do :-) ]
>
> My canonical plea from my side of the co-chair is that we need to focus on
> what unites us, not what separates us.  URIs everywhere, and the
> web method
> support in SOAP, and the goal of minimizing the disconnect
> between "the web"
> and "web services" are RESTful things we can all live with.  Of course, we
> can't ignore the trout flopping out of the ponds forever, and some things
> like "what is the role of SOAP and WSDL in the canonical
> definition of a web
> service" *are* on the table.  But intractable religious disputes are not.
>