RE: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker []
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: ''
> Subject: Re: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature
> Definitely a terminology issue, but what you build when you 
> build a "Web
> app" is not an application in the OSI sense of the word, it's just an
> addition to the existing application of the Web, though perhaps with
> "extended intents".

Is OSI normative for "the Web" (whatever that is) or the Internet?

There's a lot about REST that I find illuminating, but this "thou shalt
treat HTTP as the highest level application of The Web" commandment is
unpersuasive to me, and apparently many others.  It's The Right Thing for
one technology generation's top level to be the next generation's

SOAP 1.2 as drafted gives guidance and support for identifying web services
with specific URIs, using those URIs to make read-only services first-class
members of the web (i.e., one can hyperlink to them), it offers hooks so
that tool users can request that SOAP use the appropriate HTTP method, and
it (in conjunction with WSDL) offers a way to use POST that is more orderly,
and no less RESTful, than current practice on the Web.  I've totally lost
track of what *else* you (MB) want SOAP 1.2 to actually say to encourage

Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 13:56:56 UTC