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

RE: S600: Comments on the Web Services Architecture Usage Scenari o s document (was Re: New draft of the Web Services Architecture Usage S cen arios document)

From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:06:40 -0500
Message-ID: <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C5976B@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:28 PM
<snip>
FWIW, what I was getting at was that HTTP is special amoungst
application protocols, because it is the only one that has any notion of
a URI, and therefore any notion of discoverability in all contexts.  FTP
existed long before URIs, and before URIs became common place there was
no way to identify a FTP resource; you had to write it down like
"FTP site; garbo.uwasa.fi, /pub/software".

So URIs are great, because they make previously universally
undiscoverable resources, universally discoverable.  And HTTP GET is
just as great, because it can be used to resolve all of these things.
So "restricting" yourself to GET isn't actually a restriction (though
I'd agree that we could separate the semantic from the protocol, so
that other Web architecture friendly application protocols, whenever
anybody builds one, are supported).

<snip>

Yes, I agree. This truly is the middle ground:-)
The key is separating the semantics from the protocol.
Lets hope we do it right.

Regards,
-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   
Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 20:07:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT