- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:07:36 -0700
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
I'm very interested to hear the TAG's views on this, especially regarding test (b). Is it the case that something that is stateful and fine-grained, in as much as it cannot be usefully gatewayed to HTTP, cannot be part of the Web? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> Cc: <www-tag@w3.org> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Is SMTP really part of the Web Architecture? > > Elliotte, > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:05:17AM -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > SEction 1 of the arch draft states: > > > > Protocols. A small and nonexclusive set of protocol specifications > > for interchanging information between agents, including HTTP > > [RFC2616], SMTP, and others. Several of these protocols share a > > reliance on the Internet Media Type (or, "MIME") the > > metadata/packaging system [RFC2046]. > > Just to be clear, because I think the draft is, SMTP is said to be > included as part of the Web, not of Web architecture per se. > > > I am not sure SMTP properly belongs here for a number of reasons: > > > > 1. SMTP significantly predates the rest of what we call the Web. > > As do a lot of other protocols. But, while not being privy to the TAG > discussions that concluded that it be mentioned, I think the key point > here is that Web architecture *subsumes* a substantial part of many > other systems. Specifically, for SMTP, SMTP end point identifiers > (email addresses), have been subsumed via URI-izing. In addition, the > SMTP "DATA" method can, to a meaningful (though incomplete) extent, be > subsumed by HTTP POST. > > By "incomplete" I mean that some SMTP features would be lost in this > subsumption, but it could still be done, and email messages could be > sent. > > IMO, a litmus test about whether another system could be counted as part > of the Web would be; > > a) are the operations of this system performed on things with > identity (i.e. can they be URI-ized)? > b) could an HTTP gateway be constructed which mapped the application > interface of this system to HTTP's application interface (perhaps > extended), while preserving enough of the other system's functionality > to be useful? > > In my definition, a) is necessary and sufficient for a system to be > counted as part of the Web. This would include SMTP, FTP file transfer, > telnet sessions, etc.. However, of those, I believe that only SMTP and > FTP could be usefully interacted with via HTTP's interface. Telnet, > by virtue of its stateful, fine-grained messages, could not usefully > be wrapped. > > So there's certainly degrees of "being part of the Web". > > > Note that the same arguments apply to NNTP and Usenet news. FTP and > > gopher, by contrast, though not traditionally W3C protocols, are at > > least similar enough in structure to HTTP to justify being included. > > HTTPS obviously can be included. > > NNTP is another example of a system that would probably pass both a) > and b) above. GET to retrieve news articles, POST to send them (indeed, > IIRC, the HTTP method name "POST" was taken from NNTP), URIs to > identify the server/group and individual articles. However, the current > deployed subsumption of Usenet only meets the criteria in a) (i.e. you > can click on news:alt.foo.foo and your newsreader pops up). > > MB > -- > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com >
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 14:09:05 UTC