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:dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:33 AM
To: David Morris
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf