RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
> Sent: 12 February, 2003 17:39
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Winter wrote,
> > Miles Sabin wrote
> > > I don't think that is the only issue. Support for OPTIONS is far
> > > less widespread than support for extension request/response
> > > headers.
> >
> > Granted, and this is infact the exact argument forwarded by Costello
> > in a discussion we had on rest-discuss.  My argument is that any new
> > headers aren't currently supported either so from that perspective
> > I don't see an issue.
> 
> Extension _headers_ are close to universally supported. I 
> could sit down 
> right now and write a Java client which added a Meta: request 
> header to 
> requests, set up an Apache instance which used mod_rewrite to respond 
> appropriately, and expect the pair to be able to communicate through 
> arbitrary proxies and firewalls.

That's all fine and good. And it's great that it's that easy to
create new *Web* applications which are able to communicate with 
their clients in that fashion.

But we are not talking about just another web application. The 
Semantic Web is not just a web application. It's a new layer of
the core architecture. To compare the Semantic Web with a normal
web application is to compare apples and oranges, no actually
apples and orange *groves*.

It certainly is far less reasonable for a given web application
to introduce new verbs into the web architecture. I agree. But
we are not talking here about just any old web application.

We are talking about the next phase of web architecture, and that
warrants new verbs.

Especially since it is likely, if not certain, that the existing
verbs cannot be bent or coerced to work properly.

Cheers,

Patrick

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:03:25 UTC