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

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

From: Vincent Buller <Vincent.Buller@backstream.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:58:43 +0200
Message-ID: <1631B96E9023064683DC7E8AB1E695CE2A5D56@amsterdam.nl.backstream.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <atm@systinet.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Www-Talk@W3. Org" <www-talk@w3.org>
To me, there are two debates here and I'll put in my two cents worth to
each.

I'd be perfectly happy to equal "The Web" with REST in an architectural
sense for the simple reasons that having two architectures for a single
system wouldn't be the wisest thing to do.

But I would be extremely worried if this argument would lead to scoping
the W3C to REST development only. IMO "The Web" in "leading The Web to
its full potential" cannot be limited to REST, if only because that
would be saying REST *is* the final technology we'd ever need. That that
isn't expected is something I believe I've read otherwise dissenting
voices to agree on. 

I would rather say that "The Web" in "leading The Web to its full
potential" would need a more technology-indifferent description in the
direction of "universal access to information". At least, that's what
The Web has meant for me as an Web end-user.

So, while naming XMLP work "Web Services" is ambiguous at best, whether
it belongs in W3C is not a question to me. Side-effects or not, I expect
XMLP implementations *will* help me to get universal access to
information whether it's REST or RPC implemented.

Vincent Buller
Technical Product Manager
BackStream: content management - multi-channel distribution
www.backstream.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:atm@systinet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:26 PM
To: Mark Nottingham; Mark Baker
Cc: Www-Talk@W3. Org
Subject: RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)


+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.

Respectfully,
Anne

> -----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 Friday, 26 April 2002 05:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT