W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:11:54 -0500
Message-ID: <00fa01c2d53f$4048bd40$0301a8c0@w3.org>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
To: <miles@milessabin.com>; <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)


> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
> > Sent: 12 February, 2003 17:39
> > To: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jeffrey Winter wrote,
> > > Miles Sabin wrote
> > > > I don't think that is the only issue. Support for OPTIONS is far
> > > > less widespread than support for extension request/response
> > > > headers.
> > >
> > > Granted, and this is infact the exact argument forwarded by Costello
> > > in a discussion we had on rest-discuss.  My argument is that any new
> > > headers aren't currently supported either so from that perspective
> > > I don't see an issue.
> > 
> > Extension _headers_ are close to universally supported. I 
> > could sit down 
> > right now and write a Java client which added a Meta: request 
> > header to 
> > requests, set up an Apache instance which used mod_rewrite to respond 
> > appropriately, and expect the pair to be able to communicate through 
> > arbitrary proxies and firewalls.
> 
> That's all fine and good. And it's great that it's that easy to
> create new *Web* applications which are able to communicate with 
> their clients in that fashion.
> 
> But we are not talking about just another web application. The 
> Semantic Web is not just a web application. It's a new layer of
> the core architecture. To compare the Semantic Web with a normal
> web application is to compare apples and oranges, no actually
> apples and orange *groves*.

Excuse me, but that is *NOT* the semantic web vision.
The semantic web is an extension of the current web to
include data. This doesn't mean we have to throw away the
current web.  It is also essentail hat the zexisting web information
and semantic web information are not compartmentatlized but
totally integrated.

> It certainly is far less reasonable for a given web application
> to introduce new verbs into the web architecture. I agree. But
> we are not talking here about just any old web application.
> 
> We are talking about the next phase of web architecture, and that
> warrants new verbs.

Why?   HTTP didn't merit a new TCP or a new DNS.
Its strength is that it builds cleanly on top of existing generic
protools.
 
> Especially since it is likely, if not certain, that the existing
> verbs cannot be bent or coerced to work properly.

You have a jaundiced view of the exsiting verbs, maybe.

It is a specific and important goal to build consistently
with the exusting infrastructure.
When getting information, use HTTP GET.

This is basic web architecture.
Do do otherwise breaks it.

> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
> 
Received on Saturday, 15 February 2003 17:08:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT