Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Because anything truly new is also unrecognizable. It will sit on the shelf while the insanely restless play with it and adapt it. Over some period of time they will get results that others will covet and emulate. "To play with only this and that old hat is such a bore But I sadly fear the love of the ear is to hear what it heard before." -Songwriters Lament- That is why marketing tends to dominate business, not innovation. And no, there are no new observations in that either. Specifications should be designed for technologies that are almost ready for commercialization. Standards should be written for commercial technologies with enough marketshare that public interests are affected and therefore, require obligated controls. The very fact of the URI-centric definition of the Web is a sign that The Web is one of those "adapted to its environment" technologies. The speculative issue is whether that is a fitness trait. I should think so but the nature of the competition within the environment plays a role in determining that. In effect, the web architecture of REST is a means to constrain competition and restrict innovation in the public interest. That is intelligent adaptation (dharma: restrict choice in one decision set to multiply choice (artha) in another). Can anyone conceive of a change in the Internet environment that would make that choice unfit? What about for XML? What would have to happen to make XML an unfit choice? What would have to happen to make either more fit (not changes to XML or URIs, but the environment in which they are fielded)? len From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@a...] On 20 May 2002 at 16:05, Paul Prescod wrote: > > Unofficial motto: "REST: Everything old is new again." We could apply this to a number of things - including a three letter acronym we all know and love.
|
