- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:28:35 -0700
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
No way dude. A summary of REST is in the normative sections of the TAG doc, and there's a ref to Roy's thesis. Therefore REST is in the TAG doc. I even had to go to the mat (as you can see in the TAG minutes) to get the REST material in. There's irony that I get beat up by you on architecture and REST, and yet I was the biggest TAG advocate for getting REST summary into the TAG document. Anyways, let's end this discussion. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:27 AM > To: David Orchard > Cc: 'Mark Baker'; 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Reading list for September Face to Face meeting > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:59:37AM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > > <snip/> > > > but I don't believe it's in the best interest of this > > > WG, the W3C > > > at large, or the Web itself, that we don't treat REST as > > > authoritative. > > > > > > > Who said anything about that? I called out Roy's thesis > and the w3c TAG doc > > as authoritative material on REST. > > You did! When you said; > > ] My principle is that the > ] TAG work is pretty darned definitive on whatever it's > chosen to document, > ] and anything not ( perhaps yet ) endorsed by the TAG is not > part of the web > ] architecture. > > If you meant to exclude Roy's dissertation from that, then > that's fine, > but I hope you don't blame me for not inferring that. > > MB > -- > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com > >
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 13:31:52 UTC