- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:27:58 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, T.V Raman <raman@google.com>, "seb@serialseb.com" <seb@serialseb.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "tthibodeau@openlinksw.com" <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
[Oops! Accidentally hit send before I was finished. Trying again.] > > From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] > > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - > Boston) wrote: > > > > > > Well, the HTTP spec sounds pretty clear about what > > should happen, so it may be a violation of the HTTP spec to > > return the wrong thing, but I don't view it as a violation of > > the architecture. > > > > > > That's an interesting response, David. So the architecture is > > not reflected in the specifications? Are you saying the > > specifications are wrong, or that The Architecture is > > ineffable and cannot be captured by mere specifications. Yes, there are architectural principles that are not captured by other specifications. That's one fundamental reason why the TAG wrote the AWWW document: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ Hopefully specifications do reflect the architecture, and AFAIK the HTTP spec does, so if it helps I could rephrase my statement: > > Well, the HTTP spec sounds pretty clear about what > > should happen, so it may be a violation of the HTTP spec to > > return the wrong thing, but *aside from that* I don't view > > it as a violation of the architecture. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 16:29:25 UTC