- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 18:22:35 +0200
- To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
- Cc: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+800yAObABiFh7Vg6a3o1fM6OTvtZpc68Pf=WJWuS=rQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 1 June 2013 18:13, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Melvin Carvalho wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 1 June 2013 16:50, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto: >> mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>> wrote: >> >> Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 1 June 2013 14:54, Miles Fidelman >> <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> > >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>>> >> wrote: >> >> Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 1 June 2013 03:49, Miles Fidelman >> <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> > >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> >> >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> > >> >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> >> <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>>>> >> wrote: >> >> Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> >> >> We could indeed use SMTP for messaging and it has >> advantages, >> but it would be nice to get the web up to be >> able to do >> something as simple as sending messages >> between two >> parties >> after more than 20 years. We're not there >> yet, and if >> we can >> even achieve that small step it's a victory! >> >> >> Umm, why? >> >> Messaging is messaging. The "web" is HTTP and >> hypertext - >> client-server computing. Two different things. >> >> And, by the way, there've been server-based email >> systems >> for at >> least 60 years. >> >> >> Try taking two users at random on the FSW on different >> networks. Then try sending a message from user 1 to >> user 2. >> In many cases there's no standard way to do it. >> >> >> Ummm.... SMTP, SMS? >> >> >> Sure what I mean is to translate that into the web. ie that >> you have a sender address and receiver address with a message >> body. Major communication systems, SMS, email, telphone, >> postal service all can do this, but strangely the web (ie >> http) cant yet. HTTP POST lets you send to an address and a >> message body, but does NOT easily allow you to see who the >> sender is. >> >> >> Might I point out that it really damages your credibility if you >> don't actually understand what different protocols do, and the >> whole concept of layering. >> >> >> Thanks for the feedback, I will try to be clearer, and am always happy to >> improve my understanding. Re credibility, I wasnt sure I had any! :) >> >> >> HTTP POST does NOT allow you to send to an address - it allows you >> to do a transaction between a client and a server (a specific >> machine, or something that masquerades as a single machine). Any >> messaging going on is layered on top of (or below) HTTP - as in >> posting an email message to a mail server via HTTP, instead of >> SMTP -- when you use webmail, all you're doing is layering a GUI >> on top of some messaging infrastructure. >> >> >> I see you point, but my understanding is that HTTP POST allows both >> headers and a payload. The payload could in theory be used to send a >> message. However, to add the address of the sending party is problematic, >> meaning that the receiver doesnt always easily know who the message was >> from. There are a number of headers that could be used or this such as: >> >> "From" : however this tends to be email only as it was inherited from the >> email paradigm >> >> "User-Agent" : however this is used to identify the browser, rather than, >> the user. Webmasters may note that spiders such as google and baidu >> actually stuff the http address of the spider into this field as part of a >> csv, though this is not idea. >> >> To my knowledge, there's no top level header in the HTTP spec that allows >> you to identify an HTTP user. We could make one, but that would be >> something new, that requires some text, and some consensus. >> >> > Umm... HTTP authentication and/or SSL client side certificates. > Re HTTP Auth, are you saying it supported a userid that can be an http profile? If so, I'd love to know more... > > Again... layering, and using protocols for their intended and designed > purpose. > > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > >
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 16:23:03 UTC