[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: tolerating anarchy (was Re: Personal reply)
<blink> <blink> <blink> I read the email on that discussion. It came down to <fiat> by <marca>. Sure you had rulers and you still do. Try to push a W3C spec out the door without going through the Director. Rulers may differ in style, capability, etc. but you had them then and you have them now. The only difference is whether or no you get to choose the means to choose the means. Anarchy? Mess, really. There is sort of a historical inevitability of going from oonyellimon to sieg heil if the rulers become more important than the rules. What web rules did was made it possible for the strongest to eliminate competitors, by the rules, fairly, openly. We want open compeition? Fine. We have that right now. Did everyone go home? Nope, we use IE and play together By The Rules. What the schema enables is to choose the means. If the schema is "privileged", we can't choose the means to choose the means. Understand? Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Eric Bohlman [mailto:ebohlman@e...] 3/13/01 3:53:15 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >The web succeeded based on a standard set of >generic codes passed among communicating parties >via a standard protocol all implemented over >a code library made freely available from >the originators of that code. > >There isn't a hint of anarchy in that. Depends on how you define "anarchy." If you take it to mean the absence of *rules*, then you're certainly correct. If you take it to mean the absence of *rulers*, then I'd say the process was pretty anarchic; nobody was able to make anything happen purely by virtue of who they were. What we had was standardization by acclamation. The rules of the Web were in some ways more like physical "laws" than legislation; people observed them because they couldn't accomplish anything if they didn't. There was no "if I can't play quarterback I'm taking my ball home" because there was no-one in sole possession of the only ball. It was more like "if you don't follow the rules, nobody will want to play with you."
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|