XML-RPC and http

[Russell Turpin]

Roy Fielding writes:
> Standards are an expression of commonly agreed best 
> practices. ..

Hmm. I expect a protocol spec, first and foremost, to 
describe the protocol, and to specify what correct
implementations of it must do, and may do, from both
sides. This should be a technical description that is
expressed with some degree of mathematical rigor. 
How's *that* for a best practice?

> .. if I hired you to build a Web site according to those 
> best practices, and you abused HTTP semantics ..

I didn't understand this whole business about abusing
protocols when it was discussed a few weeks ago, 
and it seems just as mysterious now. Either an 
implementation satisfies a protocol, or it doesn't. The
problem with some of the notions expressed here is
that they are so fuzzy that it is impossible to tell 
what satisfies it and what doesn't. Let's see ..GET 
is supposed to be "idempotent," and is not supposed 
to "cause" stateful changes to websites. Does the 
spec explain these notions with some rigor? Does
a page counter violate the second? Does a website
that changes it display according to the number of
recent visitors violate both? Is the spec adequately
precise to definitively answer these questions, and
others about what implementations of GET would
violate these requirements? For example, can you 
write a test program that identifies when a site 
fulfills these requirements, and when it fails these 
requirements? 

Russell