On Jan 30, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Are the suggested sentences going to change that situation, or any particular outcome? Well, if we negate them, we should see what are the characteristics of the "ideal" protocol the AD is seeking: Publishing systems may choose to accept, reject, delay, moderate, censor, reformat, translate, relocate or recategorize the content submitted to them. All decisions are immediately relayed back to the client in response to client requests
Nope. Lisa read the word "arbitrary" to mean that clients control what gets posted and servers don't fuck with incoming data. I do not find that reading insane, and think it's worth making it clear, in the introduction, that this is not like checking in source code or revising a legal contract. You send the server data and the server does what it's gonna do. As far as I know, this is the first application-level protocol ever to be designed based on this assumption, and thus there is benefit in making it painfully explicit right up front. FWIW, I had a database guru at Sun fall into a very similar trap not 24 hours ago; I was encouraging him to think about supporting APP in a server-side product and he said "That spec will never fly, some moron might think it's OK for servers to change the data." -Tim