Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

On 07.06.2013, at 18:20, ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) wrote:
> 
> Happy to use another word, but not to avoid the difference I think we
> shouldn't ignore: the use of URIs to get information (GET), and the
> use of URIs to perform actions (POST).  The fact that AWWW barely
> mentioned the latter, and the introductory discussion in HTTPbis still
> doesn't, is no excuse for ignoring the fact that the day is long past
> where the Web was mostly about seeking and providing information:
> today it's at least as much about _doing_ things: buying things,
> joining groups, sending emails.  The URIs we use to do such things
> deserve to be taken seriously: suggesting that they "identify
> resources" in the same way that e.g. the URI of my home page
> "identifies a resource" just underscores the vacuity of the word
> 'resource'.

I am curious - why can't everybody just stick with how the architecture (style) has been defined by Roy?

I'd rather encourage people to spend their time *explaining* what the definition of "resource" means to us than to call for RPC-ish terminology to make the audience feel at ease.

"the use of URIs to perform actions" honestly makes me shiver - do we want to go back on square one?

Jan


> 
> ht
> -- 
>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
> 

Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 01:26:48 UTC