W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:30:48 -0500
To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: distobj@acm.org, "'John J. Barton'" <John_Barton@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBEC5C60F.1406CDAD-ON85256B59.0008EFD5@lotus.com>
Stuart Williams writes:

 >> If you then replace the human client with a 
>> program... it presumably needs to be endowed 
>> with some awareness of the signifcance of the 
>> resources it manipulates.

+1, exactly!  I think that's why GET can only "get" you so far in modeling 
the whole world.  If you've got a human to figure out details of the 
contract, you can (appear to) leave a lot of it unspecified.  To just tell 
machines to GET and PUT/POST each others properties, with no tighter 
contract than that isn't likely to work.  As you say, the humans browsing 
a web don't treat all gets as polymorphic.  A GET for a weather report URI 
is different than one for a stock quote.  The context is determined by 
what they know, buy the positioning of links on pages, and yes, even by 
knowing the contents of otherwise opaque URI's.  Things can't be opaque at 
every level, or they'd be useless.  The question is, which levels of the 
system can look in, and which can't. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 20:48:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT