Re: High-level social web guiding principles to SWxG

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Tim Anglade <timanglade@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM, "Döhler, Anita, VF-Group"
>> <Anita.Doehler@vodafone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> High level principles
>>>
>>> 1.      What you see depends on who you are.
>>
>> DKA mentioned today some potential further discussion on point (1).  So
>> perhaps this may be better in a dedicated thread but the immediate questions
>> I have are:
>>
>> 1. Will having a different veiw, depending on who you are, be necessarily be
>> RESTful?
>
> That does not impair potential RESTful-ness. Client-side cookies
> achieve this already and are accepted withing the REST philosophy [1]
> as they do not prevent the system from being “stateless” [2].
>
>> 2. Is being RESTful a pre-requisite, in general?
>
> I don't think being RESTful is a pre-requisite at the W3C (can
> somebody confirm this?). It's certainly not a pre-requisite for the
> industry at-large.

Being RESTful is I think preferred, but realistically TimBL and the
rest of the W3C knows there's places where things like cookies can be
useful, and things where they can't be used. Web Architecture
decisions on this sort of very high-level are usually discussed in the
W3C Technical Architecture Group [1]. We can send our high-level
principles (Anita's/Christine's/etc.) there and ask for a high-level
review once we are happy with them, and ask them for a telecon if
needed.

Their "statement" about REST and so on in the "Architecture of the
WWW" document [2]. I recommend reading it, even although it's a bit
controversial and somewhat idealistic in places.

[1]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
[2]http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/



>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transfer#Constraints
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_server
>
>

Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 15:56:42 UTC