- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:26:36 -0500
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
By the way, I just noticed that Tim made a posting [1] in 2009 on just the issues pertinent to this draft finding. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NoSnooping.html On 1/12/2015 2:24 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:52:43 -0500 > >> From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> > >> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54B03F9B.3030702@arcanedomain.com> > > ... > >> IMO one of the brilliant things that Tim did in the original design of the > >> Web was to make artful gambles on architectural choices [1] that would > >>> tend< to have value over time. > > > > I strongly agree with you on that. I'm curious what document you meant > to cite > > with the [1] there, though. (It seems like you forgot to provide a link.) > > > > --Mike > > Yeah, I realized I left out the referent and didn't want to bother the list > with a resend. I intended to reference Tim's design issues musings, at [1]. > > Anyone working on the Web, and indeed anyone interested in the design of > large-scale distributed systems should read these IMO. Fascinating to see > what was anticipated, what wasn't, and how things have worked out given the > assumptions and gambles made in the early days. > > Noah > > [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ > > On 1/12/2015 2:34 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: >> Hi Noah, >> >> Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, 2015-01-09 15:52 -0500: >> >>> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:52:43 -0500 >>> From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> >>> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54B03F9B.3030702@arcanedomain.com> >> ... >>> IMO one of the brilliant things that Tim did in the original design of the >>> Web was to make artful gambles on architectural choices [1] that would >>>> tend< to have value over time. >> >> I strongly agree with you on that. I'm curious what document you meant to >> cite >> with the [1] there, though. (It seems like you forgot to provide a link.) >> >> --Mike >>
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 16:27:12 UTC