Re: RFC 3205

On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 07:28, Mark Baker wrote:
> > My 2 cents:  no.
> > 
> > See RFC 3205 for the justification and for a detailed discussion as to
> > guidelines for using HTTP as a substrate:
> 
> Some members of the XML Protocol WG put together a detailed response[1]
> to Keith's draft.  I believe it reflects the bulk of the architectural
> differences between what Web architecture is, and what the IESG believes
> it to be.
> 
> The IESG's response to our response was to dismiss it[2].
> 
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0061.html
>  [2] http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ietf-announce/msg07087.html

I take RFC 3205 to be a reasoned discussion of the concerns people have
about using the HTTP protocol without human intervention at the client. 

Reducing the role of humans in Web transactions is a sizable step in the
application of the protocol.  While the W3C seems excited about building
automated systems into the Web, there are lots of people who don't share
that excitement, and perhaps even feel betrayed by the apparently
expanding definition of the Web.

I doubt their lack of enthusiasm matters much to most participants on
this list, but it's worth keeping in mind nonetheless.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 12:34:48 UTC