- From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:30:40 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@sun.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Rather than a section on standard orthodoxies and heresies, it may be better to have a section that highlights the `input base' ideas that the WSA draws from. That way, you can point out the inheritances from REST, OMA etc. in a way that isn't threatening. Frank On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 11:04 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > > Geoff, > > I'm all for other names for the section, but I think that adding > additional architectures is quite an additional burden on the group. > We have a specific charter directive to "integrate cleanly" with Web > architecture, which is why I think keeping this section focused on it > would be healthy. > > If the group wants to take on that extra effort, that's fine with me, > and I would even be happy to help out. But it is a substantial amount > of work. > > Thanks. > > MB > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 01:41:01PM -0400, Geoff Arnold wrote: >> is orthodoxy, let's document some tolerated heresies". How >> about entitling the section "Alternative Interaction State >> Paradigms" (ah, that lovely weasel-word!), with at least four >> subsections: >> - REST >> - OMA >> - Asynchronous/dynamic >> - Other >> >> And before you protest that we haven't clearly identified what might >> go into the third or fourth section, I believe that this omission >> will be >> shortly corrected. In the mean time, I'd like to drive a stake into the >> ground for a multiplicity of ideas - not just REST and "deviations". >> >> Geoff >> > > -- > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com >
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 14:31:02 UTC