W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 2002

RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Anne Thomas Manes <atm@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:26:10 -0400
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Www-Talk@W3. Org" <www-talk@w3.org>
+1 to Mark Nottingham's response. (Mark neglected to send his response to
the entire list, so please read it below.)

I have studied REST, and I agree with Mark N that it is indeed powerful. And
I have repeated encouraged W3C to explore new and wonderful designs based on
the REST architecture. But I do not believe that REST is the answer to all
things, or necessarily the best architecture for *every* networked
application (although it definitely is for many!). As with Mark N, I like to
keep a lot of tools in my tool box, and I prefer to use the best tool for
the job at hand.

I also do not believe that REST will be the last great architectural idea
that someone will compose in my lifetime. I've experienced a lot of very
exciting new ideas during the last 45 years, and I'm convince that I will
experience a lot more during the next 45 years. Innovation and
open-mindedness are what keep me going.

The Web has been around longer than REST. You're trying to revise history by
saying that the Web architecture = REST.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:45 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Anne Thomas Manes
> Subject: Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)
> REST is indeed powerful, and is likely capable of expressing almost any
> networked application. I admire REST a lot, and these days consider it
> early and often in the architecture of my applications.
> Python is an excellent, capable and indeed Turing-complete language; I
> also consider it a core part of my toolbox. However, I wouldn't dream of
> suggesting to someone that it's the only appropriate tool for all
> applications.
> Of course, a large part of the issue here is whether the Web should be
> closely identified with REST, perhaps even to the exclusion of other
> architectural styles.
> I see some parallels here with XML. XML is a core component of the Web
> and the W3C's work; much of its power comes from the fact that XML
> applications can worry less about syntax and parsing. The presence of a
> few core specs also greatly increases the value of using XML.
> Despite all of this, CSS is not an XML-based syntax, and I don't see
> people bringing this as an issue to the TAG.
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 05:19  PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 05:24:41PM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> >> Limiting W3C's activities to only exploring REST is an unreasonable
> >> constraint.
> >
> > May I respectfully suggest revisiting that conclusion once you've
> > learned REST?  I think you'll be happily surprised at how powerful it
> > really is, and you won't feel constrained by it all.
> >
> > For example, a friend of mine from the ebXML space has been exploring
> > how to "RESTify" some of the work of his subgroup;
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/1031
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> > http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> >
> >
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:04 UTC