Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [rest-discuss] conneg considered harmful

Expand Messages
  • Robert Brewer
    ... It s clear if you read the whole thread. Larry retreats a bit to Javascript detection does a better job than Accept , admitting that Accept-Language is
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 7, 2013
      Darrel Miller wrote:
      > For the record, here is a link [1] to Larry Masinter's
      > apology for pushing accept header based conneg and his
      > suggestion that it be deprecated. It is sad that this
      > email is from 2006 and yet here we are still...

      and mike amundsen replied:
      > second, it's not clear to me whether Larry is apologizing
      > for the conneg implementation details or the concept of
      > conneg itself. and i see nothing here regarding
      > client-driven conneg,

      It's clear if you read the whole thread. Larry retreats a bit to "Javascript detection does a better job than Accept", admitting that Accept-Language is doing a fine job, and Accept itself might be OK in non-scripted payloads/clients.


      Robert Brewer
      fumanchu@...
    • Eric J. Bowman
      ... +1, and +1 to [1] and [2] while I m at it... Browsers are truly becoming their own, undefined architecture. REST may become unfeasible as a model for
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 7, 2013
        >
        > BTW - i'd be happy to see user-agents support client-driven
        > negotiation. i used to think this meant common browsers MUST be the
        > leaders for a feature like this. but recently i've started to think
        > that native-built mobile clients could start to turn the tide on what
        > features show up in the pipeline.
        >

        +1, and +1 to [1] and [2] while I'm at it...

        Browsers are truly becoming their own, undefined architecture. REST
        may become unfeasible as a model for browser-based system performance,
        which hardly means it won't continue to be the ideal, or that resources
        will cease to exist as an abstract concept even if TAG replaces the term
        in AWWW v2.

        It merely opens the door for exactly what Mike just said -- leadership
        on features/performance passes to native apps which aren't precluded
        from leveraging REST to the hilt. The problem with declaring REST a
        dinosaur (and deprecating application/xhtml+xml, removing Content-Type,
        ignoring interoperability in favor of versionless "standards" etc.), is
        it's still adapted to its environment -- HTTP over an anarchic, end-to-
        end Internet, no habitat loss I can see...

        Personally, I find the UX I'm subjected to on most every site could
        still benefit from the developers undertaking to learn a bit about
        REST even though everything about it except buzzwordiness has gone out
        of vogue lately, to the point I find it pointless to continue to comment
        on www-tag, particularly as my concern about updating HttpRange-14 not
        only wasn't responded to but judging by the minutes, wasn't even
        considered. It's been shown that sniffing binaries is a security hole,
        but I guess we'll just put out those fires as they flare up for the
        sake of not having to talk about resources/representations even though
        it's also been shown [3] that resources exist.

        </rant>

        -Eric

        [1]
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0001.html
        [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jun/0014.html
        [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jun/0028.html
      • Mike Kelly
        ... What do you mean by undefined ? Running code has definitive behaviour: http://caniuse.com/ What is it, specifically, that you feel may be about to render
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 8, 2013



          On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
           

          >
          > BTW - i'd be happy to see user-agents support client-driven
          > negotiation. i used to think this meant common browsers MUST be the
          > leaders for a feature like this. but recently i've started to think
           > that native-built mobile clients could start to turn the tide on what
          > features show up in the pipeline.
          >

          +1, and +1 to [1] and [2] while I'm at it...

          Browsers are truly becoming their own, undefined architecture. REST
          may become unfeasible as a model for browser-based system performance,
          which hardly means it won't continue to be the ideal, or that resources
          will cease to exist as an abstract concept even if TAG replaces the term
          in AWWW v2.

          What do you mean by 'undefined'? Running code has definitive behaviour: http://caniuse.com/

          What is it, specifically, that you feel may be about to render browsers infeasible as the basis for a RESTful system?

          Is there anything missing that would make it feasible and if so why is it missing? e.g. why did the efforts to introduce PUT and DELETE to <form> fail?

          fwiw, I am -1 to this idea of trying to "defend REST" by pursuing a competing platform on 'native mobile'. It seems like a huge waste of time.. How can you do this without essentially just reproducing something that does what a browser does already? Surely, it would be better to direct all that energy towards improving the trajectory of this new, "living" browser platform? Even if that is a hard slog, it's probably the most likely way of getting the outcome you want.

          Cheers,
          M
        • Eric J. Bowman
          ... Like interoperability with things that aren t browsers, or which follow RFC 3986? Highly doubtful. -Eric
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 8, 2013
            Mike Kelly wrote:
            >
            > Even if that is a hard slog, it's probably the most likely way of
            > getting the outcome you want.
            >

            Like interoperability with things that aren't browsers, or which follow
            RFC 3986? Highly doubtful.

            -Eric
          • Eric J. Bowman
            ... REST is a defined architectural style. The link you ve posted is all about where a set of moving-goalpost features overlap at a moment in time, which is
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 8, 2013
              Mike Kelly wrote:
              >
              > What do you mean by 'undefined'? Running code has definitive
              > behaviour: http://caniuse.com/
              >

              REST is a defined architectural style. The link you've posted is all
              about where a set of moving-goalpost features overlap at a moment in
              time, which is hardly the same thing. While system behavior may be
              definable, it's a by-product of the design process, as opposed to goals
              used to guide the design process. What I mean by defined architecture
              would be some sort of Taylor-school definition of just what's trying to
              be accomplished, like REST was the model for the move to HTTP 1.1.

              >
              > What is it, specifically, that you feel may be about to render
              > browsers infeasible as the basis for a RESTful system?
              >

              Silent error correction, content sniffing being used as a reason to
              deprecate Content-Type, any number of RFC 3986 violations -- we're
              clearly off into uncharted territory with little or no resemblance to
              REST, and I've just scratched the surface. What else to make of this
              move to just not mention "resource" and redefine URIs to identify
              either documents or services? How is it possible to be more anti-REST?

              >
              > Is there anything missing that would make it feasible and if so why
              > is it missing? e.g. why did the efforts to introduce PUT and DELETE
              > to <form> fail?
              >

              What's missing is browser-vendor knowledge of architecture, or any HTTP/
              URI interoperability issues not involving browsers. I won't speculate
              as to why, it's not as if Roy didn't used to waste his breath explaining
              to these people the finer points of why ad-hoc changes to WebArch are
              short-sighted. Sufficient explanation to me of why no PUT, DELETE,
              Xforms, list goes on -- not to mention feature removal...

              Clearly, the future of REST no longer lies with the browser. My status
              nowadays is "on sabbatical" to recover my health, after recently "re-
              homing" the last of my clients -- that one since 1994 which is how long
              I've been developing Web sites for consumption in browsers. I have a 9-
              week-old Alaskan Malamute to help me drop at least a couple stone before
              I return, may take a few years.

              I'll continue to participate here, but when I return to Web development
              it certainly looks like I'll be forsaking the browser for the native
              app, where I can continue to bring my clients positive returns on their
              online investments by leveraging REST to deal with the realities of the
              netowrk currently being denied by the browser vendors.

              Should be interesting to watch, but the "new direction" has caused me
              to pull my horse from the race; I no longer have any vested interest
              nor do I care about the future of browsers. Only a sense that we'll be
              cleaning up the mess for a long time to come -- corporate production
              cycles, marketing imperatives, and bottom lines are no way to guide
              the Web's architectural development, and this era can't end well.

              -Eric
            • Mike Kelly
              ... Ok, I disagree. Afaik, there isn t a more feasible course of action, and it sounds as if you are not going to invest any time on an alternative in the
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 8, 2013
                On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
                > Mike Kelly wrote:
                >>
                >> Even if that is a hard slog, it's probably the most likely way of
                >> getting the outcome you want.
                >>
                >
                > Like interoperability with things that aren't browsers, or which follow
                > RFC 3986? Highly doubtful.

                Ok, I disagree. Afaik, there isn't a more feasible course of action,
                and it sounds as if you are not going to invest any time on an
                alternative in the foreseeable future.

                I do share some of your concern though, so it would be intriguing to
                hear some specifics on what those alternatives might (or already do)
                look like... mamund? :)


                On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
                > Mike Kelly wrote:
                >>
                >> What do you mean by 'undefined'? Running code has definitive
                >> behaviour: http://caniuse.com/
                >>
                >
                > REST is a defined architectural style. The link you've posted is all
                > about where a set of moving-goalpost features overlap at a moment in
                > time, which is hardly the same thing. While system behavior may be
                > definable, it's a by-product of the design process, as opposed to goals
                > used to guide the design process. What I mean by defined architecture
                > would be some sort of Taylor-school definition of just what's trying to
                > be accomplished, like REST was the model for the move to HTTP 1.1.
                >
                >>
                >> What is it, specifically, that you feel may be about to render
                >> browsers infeasible as the basis for a RESTful system?
                >>
                >
                > Silent error correction, content sniffing being used as a reason to
                > deprecate Content-Type, any number of RFC 3986 violations -- we're
                > clearly off into uncharted territory with little or no resemblance to
                > REST, and I've just scratched the surface. What else to make of this
                > move to just not mention "resource" and redefine URIs to identify
                > either documents or services? How is it possible to be more anti-REST?
                >
                >>
                >> Is there anything missing that would make it feasible and if so why
                >> is it missing? e.g. why did the efforts to introduce PUT and DELETE
                >> to <form> fail?
                >>
                >
                > What's missing is browser-vendor knowledge of architecture, or any HTTP/
                > URI interoperability issues not involving browsers. I won't speculate
                > as to why, it's not as if Roy didn't used to waste his breath explaining
                > to these people the finer points of why ad-hoc changes to WebArch are
                > short-sighted. Sufficient explanation to me of why no PUT, DELETE,
                > Xforms, list goes on -- not to mention feature removal...
                >
                > Clearly, the future of REST no longer lies with the browser. My status
                > nowadays is "on sabbatical" to recover my health, after recently "re-
                > homing" the last of my clients -- that one since 1994 which is how long
                > I've been developing Web sites for consumption in browsers. I have a 9-
                > week-old Alaskan Malamute to help me drop at least a couple stone before
                > I return, may take a few years.
                >
                > I'll continue to participate here, but when I return to Web development
                > it certainly looks like I'll be forsaking the browser for the native
                > app, where I can continue to bring my clients positive returns on their
                > online investments by leveraging REST to deal with the realities of the
                > netowrk currently being denied by the browser vendors.
                >
                > Should be interesting to watch, but the "new direction" has caused me
                > to pull my horse from the race; I no longer have any vested interest
                > nor do I care about the future of browsers. Only a sense that we'll be
                > cleaning up the mess for a long time to come -- corporate production
                > cycles, marketing imperatives, and bottom lines are no way to guide
                > the Web's architectural development, and this era can't end well.
                >
              • Glenn Block
                So no one has any thoughts on content-location with regards to reducing the need for a redirect?
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 21, 2013
                  So no one has any thoughts on content-location with regards to reducing the need for a redirect?


                  On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@...> wrote:
                   

                  On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
                  > Mike Kelly wrote:
                  >>
                  >> Even if that is a hard slog, it's probably the most likely way of
                  >> getting the outcome you want.
                  >>
                  >
                  > Like interoperability with things that aren't browsers, or which follow
                  > RFC 3986? Highly doubtful.

                  Ok, I disagree. Afaik, there isn't a more feasible course of action,
                  and it sounds as if you are not going to invest any time on an
                  alternative in the foreseeable future.

                  I do share some of your concern though, so it would be intriguing to
                  hear some specifics on what those alternatives might (or already do)
                  look like... mamund? :)


                  On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
                  > Mike Kelly wrote:
                  >>
                  >> What do you mean by 'undefined'? Running code has definitive
                  >> behaviour: http://caniuse.com/
                  >>
                  >
                  > REST is a defined architectural style. The link you've posted is all
                  > about where a set of moving-goalpost features overlap at a moment in
                  > time, which is hardly the same thing. While system behavior may be
                  > definable, it's a by-product of the design process, as opposed to goals
                  > used to guide the design process. What I mean by defined architecture
                  > would be some sort of Taylor-school definition of just what's trying to
                  > be accomplished, like REST was the model for the move to HTTP 1.1.
                  >
                  >>
                  >> What is it, specifically, that you feel may be about to render
                  >> browsers infeasible as the basis for a RESTful system?
                  >>
                  >
                  > Silent error correction, content sniffing being used as a reason to
                  > deprecate Content-Type, any number of RFC 3986 violations -- we're
                  > clearly off into uncharted territory with little or no resemblance to
                  > REST, and I've just scratched the surface. What else to make of this
                  > move to just not mention "resource" and redefine URIs to identify
                  > either documents or services? How is it possible to be more anti-REST?
                  >
                  >>
                  >> Is there anything missing that would make it feasible and if so why
                  >> is it missing? e.g. why did the efforts to introduce PUT and DELETE
                  >> to <form> fail?
                  >>
                  >
                  > What's missing is browser-vendor knowledge of architecture, or any HTTP/
                  > URI interoperability issues not involving browsers. I won't speculate
                  > as to why, it's not as if Roy didn't used to waste his breath explaining
                  > to these people the finer points of why ad-hoc changes to WebArch are
                  > short-sighted. Sufficient explanation to me of why no PUT, DELETE,
                  > Xforms, list goes on -- not to mention feature removal...
                  >
                  > Clearly, the future of REST no longer lies with the browser. My status
                  > nowadays is "on sabbatical" to recover my health, after recently "re-
                  > homing" the last of my clients -- that one since 1994 which is how long
                  > I've been developing Web sites for consumption in browsers. I have a 9-
                  > week-old Alaskan Malamute to help me drop at least a couple stone before
                  > I return, may take a few years.
                  >
                  > I'll continue to participate here, but when I return to Web development
                  > it certainly looks like I'll be forsaking the browser for the native
                  > app, where I can continue to bring my clients positive returns on their
                  > online investments by leveraging REST to deal with the realities of the
                  > netowrk currently being denied by the browser vendors.
                  >
                  > Should be interesting to watch, but the "new direction" has caused me
                  > to pull my horse from the race; I no longer have any vested interest
                  > nor do I care about the future of browsers. Only a sense that we'll be
                  > cleaning up the mess for a long time to come -- corporate production
                  > cycles, marketing imperatives, and bottom lines are no way to guide
                  > the Web's architectural development, and this era can't end well.
                  >


                • Nicholas Shanks
                  ... I had previously suggested the very same, but apparently doing this raises security issues with intermediary caches. e.g. malicious page A sends response
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 24, 2013
                    On 22 June 2013 03:16, Glenn Block <glenn.block@...> wrote:

                    > So no one has any thoughts on content-location with regards to reducing the need for a redirect?

                    I had previously suggested the very same, but apparently doing this
                    raises security issues with intermediary caches. e.g. malicious page A
                    sends response back claiming to be a representation of page B,
                    intermediate layer caches this, and returns that response for future
                    requests to B. There needs to be a way to declare that B trusts A to
                    provide representations for itself, and for intermediaries to verify
                    this before caching the response. Apparently being on the same domain
                    is not sufficient for the HTTP folks.

                    --
                    Nicholas.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.