W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:37:13 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org



At 01:31 PM 8/20/02, Dave Hollander wrote:

>For lots of people, REST does not equal THE WEB and convincing them
>that it does will not add value to our efforts. What will add value
>is documenting the different alternatives.
>As an non-normative note, it becomes even more useful because
>it then only needs to be clear and accurate, not carry consensus
>regarding our adopted architecture.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:15 PM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:48 PM
> > To: Francis McCabe
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposal re REST and Arch doc
> >
> >
> >
> > That's ok too, but it doesn't achieve what I want to achieve;
> > documenting the *differences*.
> >
> > Is that so controversial?
>[not wearing chair hat]
>I think it's controversial because it's not at all clear what the "Web
>Architecture" is.  The most casual reading of the TAG list should disabuse
>anyone who thinks that TimBL and Roy Fielding have it clear in their minds,
>agree with each other, etc.  I'd prefer to factor out the commonalities, to
>try to bridge the gaps between Web/REST and OMA/distributed objects.
>Maybe some non-normative Note or Appendix on how what we ultimately come up
>with differs from REST would be useful. But it has to, IMHO, be called
>"REST" not "THE Web Architecture."  Reasonable people can disagree on how
>closely REST theory matches Web practice.
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 00:56:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:36 UTC