- From: Mike Champion <mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:38:54 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly said: > > [Mark Baker] > > So I suggest that a position such as "if your app can *reasonably* be > > made to look like that, use HTTP", would be superior from that > > perspective. > > Yup. Let me make sure I have this correct. It sounds like you want the TAG to declare, as an authoritative part of the Webarch document, that it is best practice to use HTTP in any circumstance where an application can reasonably made to look like hypertext? What body of practical experience in recasting Web services as hypertext applications would you point to in proposing this? What benefits would ensue to the application developer that would outweigh the costs of following such a recommendation, e.g. in giving up the one's current development tool (to the best of my knowledge, no shipping products support the Web method feature in SOAP 1.2), or the security/reliable delivery features of non-HTTP enterprise middleware products that are widely used in industry? As much as I find the REST ideas a rich source of inspiration for hypertext AND web services developers, and as much potential as I think they have in providing *a* powerful design pattern for a variety of Web applications, it is premature at best to suggest that Best Practice in non-hypertext apps is the same as for hypertext apps. I would very much like to see the TAG clarify its position on the principles that Mark Baker laid out as they apply to the hypertext Web, which is fairly well-understood at this point. I would not like to see the TAG or anyone else specify a priori theoretical constraints in an area as rapidly evolving as Web services. [speaking only for myself]
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 19:39:52 UTC