On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Mike Taylor <m...@indexdata.com> wrote:
> On 30 April 2010 16:42, Ed Summers <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Ross Singer <rossfsin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just to clarify -- OpenURL 1.0 does not assume HTTP is being used.
>> Oh, so that's the problem!
> Yes!  Exactly!
> Poor old OpenURL 1.0 is abstracted to hell and back.  The sad old
> thing doesn't even know what transport it's running on (why?  Because
> Abstraction Is Good, not because anyone actually had any reason for
> wanting to use a different transport than HTTP), and as a result it
> can't assume it has, for example, the ability for the transport to
> report errors.

Of course, per Eric's earlier comment, there's no reason why we can't
take what's there and refine it so that there are assumptions like
HTTP and optimize it to actually *work* in such an environment.

Is there?


> It's a shame.  I can see the reasons why the committee took it the way
> they did, but the whole exercise has ended up smelling of architecture
> astronautics.  See this column if you're not familiar with the term,
> it's a good read:
>        http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html

Reply via email to