- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:46:07 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Monday, 18 March, 2002, 23:00:30, noah wrote: nuic> Mark Baker writes: >>> I would prefer it if the special role of HTTP was at least alluded to. nuic> This is a point which Mark and I have occasionally discussed in private. nuic> No doubt, HTTP plays a distinguished role in the Web today and for the nuic> forseeable future. Still (and I suspect Mark doesn't agree) I don't see nuic> why our architecture should imply that the web would diminished in quality nuic> if HTTP were eventually displaced by other protocols. Indeed, I see this nuic> possibility of evolution as important to allow for changing applications, nuic> new hardware/software, and to enable access to more diverse sorts of nuic> resources over time. Clearly. nuic> If we didn't have universal naming, there would be no web; if the widely nuic> deployed protocols evolve over time, I think we're fine. Thus, and I nuic> know this is controversial, I prefer a formulation in which the nuic> foundational web architecture is just URI's, with no particular protocols nuic> or schemes distinguished or preferred. I agree with your first point but conclude that the second is too rigorous. nuic> Whatever protocols we deploy at this or that point in time are to promote nuic> interoperability for access to (representations of or information from) nuic> resources. If the TAG wants to write a separate document on "Web nuic> architecture in 2002", I think http should indeed be identified there as nuic> playing a distinguished role. I think this division into "unchanging web architecture" and "best current practices" is a useful one, but the cutoff date from one to the other is vague. Its possible to derive or extrapolate the former from the latter, (and that is my preferred method of reality checking top-down, theoretical approaches to architecture) but the period of currency of best practice is uncertain. For example, saying that markup should use XML, or XML 1.0, or XML 1.0, or XML 1.0 SE have different periods of usefulness; but to argue (which I don't think you are, but just to be sure) that there should be no mention of XML in case it gets replaced in 20 years would leave a minimal, and uselessly impractical, architecture. So I am happy to note that <i>currently</i>, HTTP enjoys widespread use; that new applications should use it rather than needlessly inventing new protocols, etc. I agree this might change, but I would not want to restrict it to a particular date range because we don't know in advance what range that is. There is also a practical point, the tension between innovation and conservatism which penalizes moving too far in either direction; its all very well to say that new protocols can be invented, and so they can, but if every single document uses a new protocol we are in trouble. Likewise if we were to force pop, smtp, irc etc to all use HTTP. The useful balance point is to have a small selection of common protocols and to invent new ones when necessary. Which all seems self evident, I guess, but worth noting to guard against the unlikely extreme of a top-down approach that either bans all mention of HTTP, or alternatively mandates it everywhere. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 17:48:00 UTC