W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:31:07 -0700
Message-ID: <BD52C6379806D51188DD00508BEEC96C012A0869@mail.contivo.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

<non-chair-hat>

+1

For lots of people, REST does not equal THE WEB and convincing them
that it does will not add value to our efforts. What will add value
is documenting the different alternatives.

As an non-normative note, it becomes even more useful because
it then only needs to be clear and accurate, not carry consensus
regarding our adopted architecture.

DaveH

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:15 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal re REST and Arch doc
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok too, but it doesn't achieve what I want to achieve;
> documenting the *differences*.
> 
> Is that so controversial?

[not wearing chair hat]

I think it's controversial because it's not at all clear what the "Web
Architecture" is.  The most casual reading of the TAG list should disabuse
anyone who thinks that TimBL and Roy Fielding have it clear in their minds,
agree with each other, etc.  I'd prefer to factor out the commonalities, to
try to bridge the gaps between Web/REST and OMA/distributed objects.

Maybe some non-normative Note or Appendix on how what we ultimately come up
with differs from REST would be useful. But it has to, IMHO, be called
"REST" not "THE Web Architecture."  Reasonable people can disagree on how
closely REST theory matches Web practice.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 16:34:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:04 GMT