Re: New question: distinguished status of http:?

I agree, just wanted to add my 2c;

> So reinventing HTTP would be a bad idea.  Making a new protocol which is
> some way a whole lot better than HTTP is conceivable. I would expect
> such a protocol to be more general, not more specific.  Inventing more
> specific protocols for given applications when what is happening is
> that data is being read or put to or posted to things in effect is
> clearly a bad idea.   Looking at your examples,

In my discussions with many people on this point, I believe part of the
misconception stems from the belief that a URI scheme must be tied to a
protocol.  I explain the problem with this view by suggesting that the
"http" URI scheme might best be thought of as being the "rest" URI
scheme, and that any protocol built to REST principles is a protocol
that can be used with all URI in the http scheme.

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 12:06:47 UTC