Skip to main content

In Which I Refute Web3S's Critiques Thusly

So the other shoe has dropped, and Yaron Goland has just given some background on Microsoft's draft Web3S protocol, while Dare comments.  Which seems at first glance kind of interesting and certainly could expand the field of REST based services in a big way.  At the same time, I'm confused by some of the stated rationales for not extending APP the way GData does.  I think there are some straightforward answers to each of the gaps he identifies:


Turtles all the way down:

    <content type="application/atom+xml">
        <feed> ... it's turtles all the way down! ... </feed>


I think this is orthogonal, but there's already a proposed extension to APP: Partial Updates.  Which uses (revives?) PATCH rather than inventing a new verb or overloading PUT on the same resource.  I'm neutral on the PATCH vs. POST or PUT thing, except to note that it's useful to be able to 'reset' a resource's state, so having the ability to allow this via either two verbs or two URIs is useful too.  I'm a little confused though since Yaron says that they're using PUT for merging but they're also defining UPDATE as a general purpose atomic delta -- so why do you need to overload PUT?

I need to think about the implications of extending the semantics of ETags to cover children of containers as well as the container. 

I do like Web3S's ability to address sub-elements individually via URIs; APP provides this out of the box for feeds and entries, but not for fields within an entry.  It's not difficult to imagine an extension for doing so that would fit seamlessly within APP though.

I think it'd be interesting to look at an APP+3S  (APP plus 2-3 extensions) to see how it would compare against Web3S, and whether the advantages of a stable, standard base do or do not outweigh the disadvantages of starting from something not tailored for your solution.  Certainly the issues raised by Yaron are fairly generic and do need solutions; they're not new; and the thinking of the APP WG has pretty much been that these sorts of things are best dealt with via extensions.


Popular posts from this blog

The problem with creation date metadata in PDF documents

Last night Rachel Maddow talked about an apparently fake NSA document "leaked" to her organization.  There's a lot of info there, I suggest you listen to the whole thing:

There's a lot to unpack there but it looks like somebody tried to fool MSNBC into running with a fake accusation based on faked NSA documents, apparently based on cloning the document the Intercept published back on 6/5/2017, which to all appearances was itself a real NSA document in PDF form.

I think the main thrust of this story is chilling and really important to get straight -- some person or persons unknown is sending forged PDFs to news organization(s), apparently trying to get them to run stories based on forged documents.  And I completely agree with Maddow that she was right to send up a "signal flare" to all the news organizations to look out for forgeries.  Really, really, really import…

Why I'm No Longer On The Facebook

I've had a Facebook account for a few years, largely because other people were on it and were organizing useful communities there.  I stuck with it (not using it for private information) even while I grew increasingly concerned about Facebook's inability to be trustworthy guardians of private information.  The recent slap on the wrist from the FTC for Facebook violating the terms of its prior consent agreement made it clear that there wasn't going to be any penalty for Facebook for continuing to violate court orders.
Mark Zuckerberg claimed he had made a mistake in 2016 by ridiculing the idea of election interference on his platform, apologized, and claimed he was turning over a new leaf:
“After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it.  This is too important an issue to be dismissive.” It turns out, though, that was just Zuck ly…

Personal Web Discovery (aka Webfinger)

There's a particular discovery problem for open and distributed protocols such as OpenID, OAuth, Portable Contacts, Activity Streams, and OpenSocial.  It seems like a trivial problem, but it's one of the stumbling blocks that slows mass adoption.  We need to fix it.  So first, I'm going to name it:

The Personal Web Discovery Problem:  Given a person, how do I find out what services that person uses?
This does sound trivial, doesn't it?  And it is easy as long as you're service-centric; if you're building on top of social network X, there is no discovery problem, or at least only a trivial one that can be solved with proprietary APIs.  But what if you want to build on top of X,Y, and Z?  Well, you write code to make the user log in to each one so you can call those proprietary APIs... which means the user has to tell you their identity (and probably password) on each one... and the user has already clicked the Back button because this is complicated and annoying.