Re: Summing up on visibility(?)

Mark Baker wrote,
> Ok, I *really* don't want to open this up again full-blown, but I
> just have to ask ...
>
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:15:01PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
> > Well, I don't believe that application-level semantics are likely
> > to be accessible to anything, intermediary or otherwise, without it
> > having some sort of prior knowledge of those semantics (this is
> > just the good ol' end-to-end principle).
>
> Wouldn't the prior knowledge of HTTP application semantics by an HTTP
> intermediary qualify?  I would agree that, for example, an SMTP
> message isn't visible to an HTTP intermediary.  But there's shared
> knowledge on application semantics in the HTTP/HTTP case.

If the _whole_ content of the application and it's semantics can be 
derived from RFC 2616, then yes. HTTP semantics are visible to HTTP 
intermediaries.

But as acres of earlier mail should have made clear, I don't believe 
that the semantics of Web services can be fully captured at the level 
of HTTP.

Let's face it, HTTP isn't even enough for plain hypertext ... the HTML 
REC isn't an appendix of RFC 2616 ;-)

Cheers,


Miles