- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:59:59 -0400
- To: www-ws@w3.org
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:13:50AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote: > > Hardcoded intermediaries are valuable, so long as they're > > hardcoded to a > > generic application; the more generic the application, the > > more valuable > > the intermediary. > > Sigh, OK, so this has been a word-game: "hardcoded intermediaries" are what > we all think of as HTTP-aware firewalls/proxies/caches/etc., because you > think of the Web as a single "application." You can understand how this > confuses those of us who think of the Web as infrastructure upon which > millions of applications are built! Oh yes, I completely understand. But I wouldn't say that it's the wording that's confusing. IMO, what's confusing is the concept of a "generic application", since that's not a familiar concept to people who have worked primarily on enterprise/Intranet systems, where high visibility is not a requirement. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 11:56:48 UTC