• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Traditional RPC
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:29:04 -0800
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C10436FD4E@r...>

Joshua Allen wrote:
> 
> Actually, that is *exactly* what Steve Case is thinking.  The thing that
> was remarkable about Napster was how quickly Sean Fanning was able to
> move from nothing to a practical monopoly in such a short time -- all
> without paying an ounce of attention to the standards. So I think that
> Dave's point is that predicting a system's demise based on its adherence
> (or lack of) to standards, is not very reliable.  Napster died because
> it stepped on the toes of the media companies, not because it had a poor
> record of working in standards organizations.

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."

 Paul Prescod

• References:
  • RE: Traditional RPC
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Previous by thread: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: RE: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread