W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Draft finding - "Transitioning the Web to HTTPS"

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:07:46 -0700
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20150126200746.0f686bd4cef9e638dda9e8f2@bisonsystems.net>
Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> 
> >
> > Anyone working on the Web, and indeed anyone interested in the
> > design of large-scale distributed systems should read these IMO.
> > Fascinating to see what was anticipated, what wasn't, and how
> > things have worked out given the assumptions and gambles made in
> > the early days.
> >
> 
> +1000
> 
> If the "Design Issues" Axioms and Weaving the Web were required
> reading for this list, it might save a whole bunch of time, imho.
> 
> I'd also point out Brian Carpenter's, "Architectural Principles of the
> Internet*"*
> 

I'd also point to REST, at least as an example of "Taylor-school"
architecture as applied to the WWW. The whole point of architecture is
to provide a guideline for development. The reality today, is seeing
architecture as an afterthought -- i.e. a "living description" of what
decisions have been made -- rather than seeing architecture as a guiding
precept for making those decisions.

The risk is, every time I see arguments on this list against one
implementation or another based on architectural grounds, I can't say
just what that architecture is. When not used as a guideline for
development, architectural arguments regarding the direction of the Web
become moot. I'm +1 on using architecture to guide development, and -1
on using architecural *changes* as ex-post-facto justification for
decisions on the direction of the Web.

Making me currently -1 against any arguments as to what TAG should or
shouldn't do/endorse, being based on architectural grounds. You can't
deprecate the entire notion of architecture, then rely on architectural
arguments to prove/disprove anything.

-Eric
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 03:08:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:09 UTC