RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3

The only trouble with equating REST and the Web is that the Web existed before REST did.  I also think REST applies more to HTTP 1.1 than HTTP 1.0, so it may also be possible to argue that point of view, too.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:53 AM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:41 AM
> To: 'Mike Champion'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wsa-editors@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> 
>
> 
> 1. Historically, REST style *is* more or less the 
> architectural style of the WWW 
> (whether we like it or not!). Not saying it as such would be rewriting
> history.

So what are you suggesting ... to eliminate the distinction betweeen
"the Web" and "REST".  I could live with that, I think, but I don't
feel comfortable implying that all the non-RESTful stuff
(CGI scripts, cookies, and statefulness maintained by 
application servers) is not "the Web."  <grin>

I think I know where you're going -- maybe I cut TOO sharp a 
distinction between the Web and the RESTful subset of the
Web -- but would appreciate specific wording suggestions from
Suresh or anyone who agrees with him.

> 2. WSA must be semantic web ready (at least not inhibit)

Hmm, good point ... we should make some reference to that.  Actually, the
previous draft had a bit on "the description of an SOA is the description of
the messages" that I meant to keep and apprently didn't.  Saying something
about the potential for Semantic Web technologies to describe the semantics
as well as syntax of messages might be useful.

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 11:51:01 UTC