• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:14:09 -0800
• References: <001701c1bf9f$e27e0720$887ba8c0@mitchum> <1014827341.2372.60.camel@l...>

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> If you compare them directly, yes.
> 
> If you ask whether HTTP is an implementation of RPC, a protocol built on
> RPC, no.  I'm not talking about hypertext - I'm talking about the
> foundations on which the HTTP protocol is itself built.  I find those
> foundations to look suspiciously related to RPC, however loud the
> denials of their fans.

There is a difference between saying that HTTP is related to RPC and
saying that HTTP is an RPC protocol like XML-RPC or SOAP-RPC.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
  • RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by Date: Re: HTTPEctomy considered bad (was RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???)
• Previous by thread: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by thread: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread