RE: Web boundaries (was RE: section 1, intro, for review)

I'm not sure what "protocol work" you are talking about.  Which W3C WG is
doing protocol work that compares to BEEP?

I think that the web includes architectural styles in addition to shared
information models and hence protocols other than HTTP.  I didn't suggest
that the W3C had to be the place where the protocol evolution necessarily

I would be completely comfortable in considering XML messages flowing
between URI identified resources using BEEP/TCP/SMTP to be an evolutionary
step, part of the web, and maybe part of web services.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Simon St.Laurent
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:59 PM
> To:
> Subject: Web boundaries (was RE: section 1, intro, for review)
> On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 19:10, David Orchard wrote:
> > So I find it not suprising at all that changing one variable (adding
> > extensible data interchange models via XML) means a change
> to a different
> > variable (adding different information models to a single
> information
> > model).  Often these changes happen in ways we didn't
> expect - law of
> > unintended consequences.  That's the way architectures and
> other things
> > evolve.
> >
> > I'd prefer a web with principles that evolve.  At a deeply
> personal level,
> > that's the primary reason I ran for the TAG.
> That's admirable, but at some point it seems like this kind
> of protocol
> work really belongs at the IETF.  We already have a container for XYZ
> protocol, and it's called the Internet, not the Web.
> Has the W3C ever sorted out where the boundaries of the Web
> per se are?
> I'd understood long ago that the W3C was welcome to build on HTTP, but
> protocol work below that wasn't really W3C territory.
> There's this really neat stuff called BEEP going on...
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
> Errors, errors, all fall down!

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 16:41:10 UTC