- From: <Mike_Spreitzer.PARC@xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:30:00 PDT
- To: ulrich.kunitz@db.COM
- cc: www-http-ng-comments@w3.org
> The HTTP-NG protocol isn't according the architectural model a Hypertext > Transfer Protocol. How about HOPP: hyperobject processing protocol? "HTTP-NG" is not the name of the middle layer, it's the name of the whole thing. Yes, the middle and bottom layers need more generic names. > I believe the whole thing is called HTTP-NG to solve some fund raising issues > for a distributed architecture research project. HTTP-NG is not HTTP anymore, > it solves a different set of problems. If by "different" you mean "larger", that's so. But then, the web keeps getting pushed to do more things --- solve more problems. So I think this is fair, not semantic hash to solve funding problems. > I fear that HTTP-NG is losing the most important feature of HTTP 1.x: simplicity HTTP/0.9 is simple; HTTP/1.1 is not; HTTP/1.x for x>1 would be even more complex. "Simple" is a fairly vague, general word; you have to say what you mean by it to have a useful discussion. HTTP-NG is simpler than HTTP/1.x in at least one imporant way: it is more modular. That is, rather than having one big monolithic spec, we're factoring it into smaller pieces that stand on their own (or at least on relatively few details of the other parts).
Received on Monday, 13 July 1998 19:30:07 UTC