W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2002

RE: section 1, intro, for review

From: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:10:41 -0800
To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02a101c1ceda$822c53a0$420ba8c0@beasys.com>
Actually, to me it's more of an expansion of the scope of the web.  I'd
rather have a more inclusive web, that includes different models.  The
invarients are more to do with the uniformity of access aspects,
particularly URIs and XML, imo.

To a certain extent, I think that adding on XML started the evolution to
additional processing/information models.  With the restrictiveness of HTML,
a shared information model makes a lot of sense.  I also tend to think that
information models and processing models are quite related.  But with XML, I
can have one document that might target different resources/components with
sub portions of the document.  So the Extensible part of XML meant we can
develop extensible information or processing models.

So I find it not suprising at all that changing one variable (adding
extensible data interchange models via XML) means a change to a different
variable (adding different information models to a single information
model).  Often these changes happen in ways we didn't expect - law of
unintended consequences.  That's the way architectures and other things
evolve.

I'd prefer a web with principles that evolve.  At a deeply personal level,
that's the primary reason I ran for the TAG.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Simon St.Laurent
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: section 1, intro, for review
>
>
> On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 18:23, David Orchard wrote:
> > Noah and I share the viewpoint that protocol evolution is a
> good and natural
> > thing.  My reason is because I don't think that the
> everything that we want
> > to do in the future should be modeled as propagation of a
> shared information
> > space.  For example, the assumptions of cardinalities of identified
> > resources might not hold.  Adn the propagation issues may
> be different
> > depending upon the application.   A concrete example that I
> like is thinking
> > about reliable delivery of a stock quote message.  From the
> queue software's
> > perspective, this is a POST.  But from the stock quote applications
> > perspective, this is a GET.  So I want to POST a GET request ;-).
> >
> > Perhaps the real issue isn't http, but whether a shared
> information space is
> > the way that we should think about future applications that
> we want to
> > build.
>
> Is it fair to question whether that kind of evolution is in fact
> evolution away from the Web?
>
> I'm not arguing that it isn't worth pursuing in general, but a shared
> information space seems pretty fundamental to notions of the Web.
>
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
> Errors, errors, all fall down!
> http://simonstl.com
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 19:12:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:05 GMT