RE: section 1, intro, for review

On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 18:23, David Orchard wrote:
> Noah and I share the viewpoint that protocol evolution is a good and natural
> thing.  My reason is because I don't think that the everything that we want
> to do in the future should be modeled as propagation of a shared information
> space.  For example, the assumptions of cardinalities of identified
> resources might not hold.  Adn the propagation issues may be different
> depending upon the application.   A concrete example that I like is thinking
> about reliable delivery of a stock quote message.  From the queue software's
> perspective, this is a POST.  But from the stock quote applications
> perspective, this is a GET.  So I want to POST a GET request ;-).
> Perhaps the real issue isn't http, but whether a shared information space is
> the way that we should think about future applications that we want to
> build.

Is it fair to question whether that kind of evolution is in fact
evolution away from the Web? 

I'm not arguing that it isn't worth pursuing in general, but a shared
information space seems pretty fundamental to notions of the Web.

Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!

Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 18:32:15 UTC