On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:11, Noah Slater wrote: > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 20:52, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> Actually, I'd dispute that. The INTERNET is perhaps the largest system ever >> built, the web rides on top of a lot of lower level infrastructure. There's >> a lot of other stuff riding on top of the underlying IP infrastructure - >> email, VoIP, chat, etc. - which don't rely on HTTP. (Note: I speak as >> someone who dates back to almost the beginning - I spent a good part of my >> career at BBN, just as we were transitioning the ARPANET to TCP/IP, and it >> was serving as the hub of the then fledgling Internet). > > I was anticipating this response. :) > > My reply would be to state that the Web subsumes the Internet in many ways. > >> True. Though, it has also lead to (IMHO) abortions such as SOAP - which >> Dave Winer initially wrote as a way to use HTTP to tunnel traffic through >> firewalls. > > LOL > > I think you mean XML-RPC, but they're both as bad as each other. > > In either case, they are so hilariously against everything the Web stands > for, it's not really applicable!
I'd like to add that Miles does have a point, but we have good reasons to have HTTP for now and in the future. It doesn't mean that applying specializations where applicable is not an option (double negative :). Cheers Jan --
