[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes, and once the free content existed, you got users, and then people
wanting to sell stuff to them, and in order to communicate with them they
would have had to support the protocol that their software supports. No
users, no need to support it. Users, and then support follows.
Think about AIM. Why does anyone care about it (they do, believe me) -- it's
because there are millions of people who use software that runs over AIM.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>; <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:15 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Traditional RPC
> The popularity wasn't based on the protocol. It was based
> on the *free* content. I'd be surprised if most of the
> people using Napster understood two groats about P2P. Just
> like Mosaic, they understood they could install a client
> for free by download, then download music and burn CDs.
> Cheap CD burners and the plummeting price in CD blanks
> had a lot to do with it too.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
>
> I don't think that this is what Dave is saying because I don't think
> anyone has been arguing that standardization is the make or break factor
> for applications. So it would be attacking a strawman. I see Dave's
> argument as "popularity beats rigor."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
|
