Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 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 [expletive deleted] for whatever reason. > > ... 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"? NCSA? > CERN? 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 made it > > > 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. How > could Netscape have had a stratospheric IPO if it were not the fact that > 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. -aaron
|
