The Web was designed for deployment from the start. Its success was not pre-ordained. There were many rival hypertext schemes that were stillborn.
I do find it rather ironic though people use the example of the Web to argue that we should not bother with design for deployment. IM is still a network application, it is not an inter-network application yet. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:33 AM > To: David Morris > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: adoption times (was Re: DNS Choices) > > > > David Morris wrote: > > It isn't a trivial technical problem to revise the > electronic message > > infrastructure to arrange for payment of postage but to > assert that it > > can't be done or wouldn't be deployed flys in the face of the > > relatively short time frame for adoption of the WWW or IM. > adoption > > I suspect you already know this, given your language, above, > but its possible to confuse a distinction yo imply: > > There is a fundamental difference between adopting a new > service, versus revising an existing one. WWW and IM were > new. No concern over protecting the installed base. > > It is one of the reasons that successful revision efforts > which take a shorter time attempt to do so in a way that > emulates adopting a new one. > > MIME is a particularly successful version of that. No > changes to the infrastructure. Didn't break recipient > software that didn't support it. And delivered a message > that was still moderately readable for the non-supporting > recipient. (Oh, and the recipient could incorporate MIME, > later, and be able to enjoy its features.) > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
