At 12:27 PM -0400 8/9/00, Brijesh Kumar wrote:
>James,
>
>We have gone through WAP v/s non-WAP threads several times on this
>list. Let us hope this does not become another meaningless thread with
>little technical merits in the arguments.
>
>What is the use of criticizing a technology? If it is not good for a
>purpose, or only the second best, it will die itself. IETF, ISO or ITU
>can't sustain any standard unless someone in the world sees some
>merits in it. Some people out there see WAP is good for them, and some
>others see it a temporary diversion from the "real" deal. So what is
>new about it.
Actually, nothing. The last round of "WAP is a trap" discussion on
this list finally forced me to go look at it. The fascinating thing
about WAP is how closely it resembles Videotex. The similarities are
very close. There are probably not many around who ever even saw
Videotex. It would be interesting to know if the similarity is
accidental or on purpose. It might tell us a lot about the current
state of education in protocol design or the dichotomy in the
cultures of protocol designers.
It might also give us some insight into how we can expect WAP to play
out. It certainly gives us plenty of reasons to expect a particular
future.
I'd be curious what prompted Salsman's note.
Take care,
john
