- From: Mike Dierken <mike@dataconcert.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:54:16 -0800
- To: www-tag@w3.org
> > Types don't merely have complexity costs, they have complexity > benefits as well. A type is a constraint: it sets bounds on the range > of acceptable values of any instance of that type, and as such > _reduces_ complexity. 'acceptable' seems slanted toward the receiver of the value. Given 10 receivers - each with different constraints - the complexity at each receiver might be low, but the complexity at the sender is 10x. How many senders does a receiver want to play with? It depends on the attitude toward incoming messages : If a receiver says "I don't care, as long as everybody sends stuff in my format" then senders will see a myriad of choices and have to slog through building many adapters, and the network will be quiet for a long time. If a receiver says "I party with anybody" then the network will be busy indeed. You can see that on the Web today - each FORM POST is a unique format, and almost nobody cross-posts to other sites (to 'compose' new services, etc.). However, each GET is a consistent format and almost everybody (can) cross-link to other sites. If XML-Protocol is a new application protocol, then it should have a new port and uri schema: xmp://stockquotes.com/quotes/ or whatever. If it is not a new protocol, but people want to use it with HTTP, then the xml data description language portion of XML-Protocol should be a registered mime type for use in Content-Type and examples should be given for how to use it with GET, PUT, POST, etc.
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 19:55:02 UTC