W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: REST, uniformity and semantics

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:44 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401E6303C@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: "'Mark Baker '" <distobj@acm.org>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Oh, I see the ambiguity in my response.  Basically, I'm saying that the
TAG's Webarch document is our normative input vis a vis the constraints of
the Web architecture that WSA must "align" with.  Fielding's thesis, or
anyone else's interpretation of which "web" constraints should apply to WSA,
are *informative* inputs *only* once they are in the Webarch document.  

This may or may not be relevant to this thread; perhaps I was
over-interpreting Walden's "(For those who didn't recognize it, #2 is one of
the REST constraints.)"  I replied because I want to make very clear that I
do not consider the "REST constraints" as being relevant to this WG unless
a) we decide that they are; or b) the TAG puts them in the Webarch document
and asserts that they apply to Web services [and it's not at all clear to me
that the TAG wants to grasp the nettle of Web services!]. 

I invite people read the soon-to-be published WSA working draft and raise
any Webarch issues one thinks are in it, but we do NOT invite issues
concerning WSA's non-conformance with non-normative constraints on it. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sent: 5/16/2003 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: REST, uniformity and semantics

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:12:54AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> As I may have pointed out before :-) Mark's interpretation of Dr.
> thesis is not a normative input into this WG.

What are you referring to there, Mike?
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 09:07:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:51 UTC