Web Things, by Mark Baker

Stefan, more bitter than *moi*?! 8-)
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Complexity + complexity != simplicity. Good to see REST given two paragraphs in the white paper though! 8-)
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

What, no EPRs? 8-) I find it ironic that the need for an identity “metasystem” came largely from Web services work, yet current work is now focusing on reusing Web standards.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Good Web citizens vs. bad Web citizens.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“you can pretend the browser is simply a proxy which has timed out”. Smart.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

“Comparing both styles is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, since REST is just a loosely defined architectural style […]” Say what?!
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Rick Mercer, Canadian funny man and political satirist, at his best.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Nice. mod-pubsub anyone?
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Hugh Winkler shares some thoughts on what is and isn’t RESTful in a recent rest-discuss thread;

RESTful design is not an end in itself: If you find yourself adding complexity to honor the constraints of REST, consider the benefit of the complexity and only do it if the benefit is clear.

Without a doubt. The reasons I dwell on the minutae of what is and isn’t RESTful is pretty simple though. It’s not because I’m some kind of architecture astronaut as many assume. No, I’m interested in the edge cases of RESTfulness because I want to understand exactly when I’m making a tradeoff, as well as what kind(s) … which is far more difficult than you’d expect.

My head nearly exploded this morning when I caught Sanjiva quoting my favourite quote from Paul Graham’s Web 2.0 essay;

This is a great essay on Web 2.0 by Paul Graham .. the quote I like best from it is “Web 2.0 means using the web the way it’s meant to be used.”

So what’s up? Is Sanjiva doing penance for past sins of Web abuse? 8-)