- From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:29:50 -0400
- To: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
Simon Tennant wrote: > On 12 June 2013 20:38, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl > <mailto:rysiek@fwioo.pl>> wrote: > > > Again, show me such a de facto standard, please. And until you do, > I will > voice my opinion we need interoperability. I don't really care if it's > interoperability between *instances* or *implementations* as long > as it is a > (de facto) standard and without a doubt (by a huge margin) *most* > of the libre > people using this kind of technology use this particular > protocol/standard. > > > That's not how successful standardisation works. > > At one point the gopher protocol was THE way to access information on > the internet. > > Then some annoying little upstart at CERN started trying to get people > to use his standard for hypertext. And nobody wanted to even have him > speak at hypertext conferences. But he kept on working on it and > building *real-world* use cases and applications and a software ecosystem. > > Others started contributing code to the NCSA browser and httpd. > > HTML was successful because someone went and built something that was > incompatible with the gopher protocol. > > THEN it was standardised. > > Bottom up works. Top down gives us standards that only a telco could love. > Yup... rough consensus and running code, then the market tends to drive what gets adopted. Miles Fidelman
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 19:30:25 UTC