Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 03:53 pm, Mike Champion wrote: > >I would argue that you cannot avoid these things. Application > >semantics/interaction styles exist, one way or another. The > > sequence of interactions, and the data exchanged are necessarily > >application-specific... you cannot deduce them from the permissible > >operations without some form of definition. > > I meant that the "representation transfer" operations are generic, > not the operations that are specific to the semantics of the data. The point I was making is that in some cases, these operations really aren't generic, and in many cases, aren't anywhere near enough to explain the dynamics of the application... so the whole thing about "visibility","portability", etc. is a read-herring, except in the scope of a particular application. This is precisely the same debate people end up with when taking about "self describing" XML.... just moved to protocols. If you're talking in the context *of* the web as a single application... it's very different from talking about network computing in the general sense. What I've been trying to point out is that the choice of network architecture is dictated by the application. I would argue that web services/rpc etc. are really a bit outside the scope of "the web" per se. and rightfully should be.
|
