Re: HTTP Methods

I think URIQA has already been discussed a dozen times on this list.
I have no interest in it for several reasons

   1) the M* names have already been proposed for batch methods,
      and soundly rejected because doubling method space is evil.

   2) the fragment is not and never will be allowed in the request-uri
      of HTTP because of the effect that has on caches and 
intermediaries.

   3) metadata is a resource too, leading to the desire to use all
      of the normal resource methods, access control, authoring, and
      metadata on that resource..

   4) doubling the number of methods and access control mechanisms
      is a bad trade-off when compared to using a link.

   5) the cost of an additional request to find out the metadata link
      is only necessary if you don't already have that link.

   6) RDF is the resource description framework -- it can refer to
      metadata about a resource just as easily as it refers to resources.

   7) The only way to make the semantic web a second-class citizen is
      to remove its resources from the Web, which is exactly what URIQA
      proposes.

It is a dead parrot.

In regards to the actual topic of this thread, yes it would be nice
if the *HTML forms specs would find a clue and stop preventing the
extensibility of the Web by artificially restricting syntax on
orthogonal protocol elements.

....Roy

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 17:08:20 UTC