[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: tolerating anarchy (was Re: Personal reply)
- From: Eric Bohlman <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>,"David E. Cleary" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:24:15 -0600
3/13/01 3:53:15 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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."