Re: [apps-discuss] Pete and Barry: now it is up to you

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 2/17/14 12:40 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Andrew Newton <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Paul Hoffman
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>     There is clearly a question of whether the WEIRDS WG will be
>>     allowed to use their current approach or be forced to change to
>>     templates. That question cannot be answered by more messages on
>>     this mailing list.
>
>     I think you have incorrectly framed the issue and resolution. The
>     issue is if the WEIRDS WG is specifying a protocol with URI
>     collisions. If they are, one of possible resolutions is to use URI
>     templates.
>
>
> Andy's right, there are other ways out of the box. For example, to use 
> an HTTP header on their GET, or to use a POST rather than a GET with 
> selector information in the message body.  Or even better a PUT since 
> it's idempotent.

Yep. And as Murray said, the specific discussion belongs over on the 
WEIRDS list. The chairs of that WG (gee, do we know any of them?) should 
of course invite the right people into that discussion if they need 
specific inviting. And if progress can't be made on the list, perhaps 
some cross-group face-to-face time would solve the problem. (I wonder 
where and when that could happen... :-) )

Look, nobody died and made me (or Barry) king. This is a technical 
issue, and you folks need to figure it out. We (and the chairs) are here 
to help out if you finally decide, "We are not getting what these people 
are saying. Help us find a path out of this mess." But I don't think you 
all are there yet.

It would help very much if both sides refrained from saying, "It's 
obvious that you don't get the obvious solution to this, which is 
obviously stated in our draft." Some folks are not understanding what 
the problem is (on both sides). Some folks are not explaining well 
enough for others to understand what the solution space is. If everyone 
gets on the same page, I'm hopeful that a good solution will at least be 
easier to see, if not "obvious".

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]