Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Oh really? So I guess I'm hallucinating when I see client
> and server implementations of HTTP each in less than a thousand
> lines of code. HTML has *grown* to be difficult to implement
> (in its entirety) but it was not so in the early days.
Ok, ok, I take it back. HTTP is probably trivial to implement (having
not implemented it fully myself). I brought it into the discussion
because it's something we all use yet I'm sure we could still find a
group of developers that thinks it technically sucks for whatever
> > ... Major vendors
> > embraced them and made it happen. Before the public had easy-to-use
> > browsers, they had no idea what resources were available to them. I
> > don't remember many successful ad-hoc browser implementations.
> What is an "ad hoc" implementation? Was Netscape a "major vendor"?
Yes, obviously Netscape was the first significant vendor. They made
another major vendor take notice and the rest is history.
> > > The Web didn't happen because the W3C and/or the major vendors
> > > happen, it HAPPENED. ...
> > I completely agree. It was the *vendors* that made it happen.
> That is the most bizarre interpretation of history I've ever heard.
> could Netscape have had a stratospheric IPO if it were not the fact
> the Web was already an exciting information resource.
That's easy, because the masses didn't understand the technology. Hope
and uncertainty drive the market.