W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: An HTML language specification

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:24:05 -0500
Message-ID: <492378C5.8080506@mit.edu>
To: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> > Can anybody name a long deployed system whose constituent protocols 
>> were
>> > specified as a monolith?  I can't.
>>
>> The United States of America.
>> http://uscode.house.gov/
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US constitution consist of 
> seven separate articles

Sure, but the reference was to the full US code.  If you think that's 
not monolithic, then I urge you to google "toy arrows bailout".  That's 
not exactly an isolated example of the way legislation works in the U.S.

-Boris

P.S.  There's the separate argument as to how much of the constitution 
is operable nowadays, and hence whether it could even be viewed as a 
reasonable constituent protocol of the U.S.  For example, the third 
amendment doesn't have much bearing on today's world, the ninth and 
tenth are pretended to not exist, and the second is always good for 
starting an argument in polite company.
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 02:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:24 GMT