[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: tolerating anarchy (was Re: Personal reply)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Eric Bohlman <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 09:03:10 -0600
<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?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Eric Bohlman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
3/13/01 3:53:15 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com> 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
*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
nobody will want to play with you."