- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:40:50 -0500
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Paul Prescod writes: >> Without GET you don't have hyperlinking. Paul: I agree with much of what you have written over the past few days, but not with this, and I think it's an important point. Maybe it would be closer to the mark to say: "Without GET you don't have hyperlinking for browsing", but even that is arguably a bit of an oversimplification. Before I proceed: this is not a critique of REST. It is merely a discussion of your suggestion that hyperlinking depends on GET. In general, I see hyperlinking as the generalized ability to refer in a uniform manner, in a broad range of contexts, to a large and perhaps diverse set of resources. The existence and widespread deployment of URI architecture gives us this. Indeed, I claim that one wants to hyperlink resources for which GET is not the obvious default operation. Further, I claim that Metcalf's law suggests that mixing all of these sorts of links in one system is much more powerful than a system in which hyperlinking is dependent in all cases on GET. What I think you mean by hyperlinking is the ability to reference a link, and without any special information on a per-link basis, have something useful happen. I don't need a separate contract for each link in a browser page: the browser will do a GET for (a representation of) any HTTP or HTTPS resource that I select. I think we are underrating the role of the browser in that scenario if we assert that hyperlinking is intimately dependent on GET. It's the browser that decides to do a GET. Another application might know to DELETE every resource that's selected. Another example: let's say we have an NFS: URI scheme, a means of linking to NFS mountable volumes. Cool idea. When I click on such a link, do I want to GET the entire volume? Probably not, but mounting it would be great. And the fact that I could imagine putting such an NFS link on a web page is the essence of hyperlinking IMO. Same with mailto: links; they generally send rather than GET mail when selected. Metcalf's law: the power of my system grows when I can mix all of these as needed. That's why I don't want to limit the Web to retrievable documents. Who knows to do the NFS mount or mail send rather than the GET? If we're browsing, it's either the browser or supporting software acting on its behalf (probably by looking at the URI scheme...though that's always made me a bit nervous vis a vis opacity of URIs). Or maybe we're not in a browser at all. Maybe we're in a special purpose volume "explorer" and we know from context that we try an NFS mount on any link that's selected. My point is that hyperlinking is not tied to particular operations such as GET. It's almost always the consuming application that knows what operation to apply to a link, maybe by looking at the URI scheme, or maybe from other context. Yes, sticking to REST in the many situations to which it applies gives us some truly powerful interoperability scenarios. That is among the reasons that REST is interesting and important. I think the notion of hyperlinking in a near-universal web is mostly orthogonal to the suite of operations that we deploy on those resources; to the extent we can also make those operations near-universal, we do significantly increase the ability to mix-n-match resources with applications. So, REST is important, but hyperlinking doesn't in any other sense depend on GET, IMO anyway. Many thanks. P.S. I will be out of touch for 3 days or so. I'm sure the tag would appreciate that we not start an extended discussion of this in any case. Should anyone reply, please take no offense if I don't see your note until middle of next week. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 22:56:44 UTC