Subject: The Populist Evangel
From: aray@nyc.pipeline.com (Arjun Ray)
Date: 1996/01/15
Message-ID: <4dctqr$14l@alpha.nyc.pipeline.com>
References: <4d2779$iba@news1.goodnet.com> <4d9ker$46l@duke.cs.duke.edu> <30F875EA.2EBE@werple.net.au> <4da5m9$dm8@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: FUDGE Dispersal Systems
Followup-To: comp.infosystems.www.advocacy
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy
:Margaret <margaret@werple.net.au>:
| I don't think much of HTML purists either, I believe that the defacto
| industry standards will become real standards in the future
:Scott Bigham <dsb@cs.duke.edu>:
| And who's going to write this standard? Netscape? Microsoft? They
| haven't shown much interest in that area so far. Or will this be a
| "Follow the Bouncing Browser" sort of standard, where the standard
| is defined to be "whatever the current version of Netscape does",
| and the entire industry has to jump and scramble every time Netscape
| changes its mind or fixes a bug?
:Margaret <margaret@werple.net.au>:
| Considering the flame inspired tone of your message, my point is now
| well made.
:Scott Bigham <dsb@cs.duke.edu>:
| What flame? That was a serious question. "The Program Is The Standard"
| standards are almost invariably unworkable, and have a distressing
| tendency of collapsing under their own weight, for exactly the reasons
| I described above. Is that what you *want* to happen to the Web?
I'd guess Margaret would consider this question impertinent.
First, since you're a purist, Scott, you're a flamer by definition:-)
Next, you've doubted^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hflamed her *belief* that "defacto
industry standards will become real standards". She may not consider
this prognostication disputable. Then, she isn't the only one to have
expressed this sentiment. This bespeaks currency and circulation, and
quite probably a wider context that can be appealed to, where this all
makes sense: a "should become" to reinforce the belief in "will become".
Purists like you, Scott, just don't get it: all should^H^H^H^H^H^Hwill
not be chaos and confusion. So, let's look at what subscribers to
Margaret's dictum are counting on.
Regarding standards, what's "real" in relation to "defacto"? De jure?
One fine day the popularity contest is declared over, the votes are
in, everything is now officially official? For this to work, we would
need
1. Authority. The essential notion is contractarian: there's us in
the trenches wanting things, and there's them yon committee on high
supposed to give us what we want. We vote and they sanction; they
proclaim and we consent.
2. Necessity. There's gotta be a standard, and it's gonna be the
standard. So, today we chant "NetBruiser for Standard!" and lo, they
yon committee on high should^H^H^H^H^H^Hwill oblige.
3. Answerability. Tomorrow, if we chant "WebMangler for Standard!",
they yon committee on high should^H^H^H^H^H^Hwill turn around and do
the necessary. That's their *job*. It's their *duty*.
Is that all? Of course not. We mustn't forget
4. Cachet. Internet Standards are "in". 100% buzz-word compliance is
essential. That's how we know we belong. We count. And we need yon
committee propped up on high to harass. Otherwise who's gonna listen
to our votes on what to anoint ourselves with? Specs are irrelevant.
Our's not to bother how, their's not to wonder why.
But what's all this got to do with the Web, you ask^H^H^Hflame?
Haven't we read RFC 1602? Ouch, you mean we have to consider
0. Responsibility. We're on our own? When we define a problem, we
can set up a technical discussion group? An open mailing list for all
interested participants? Trade some ideas, build a detailed spec so
others don't have to read our minds to figure out what we're doing?
Get some code running, see if implementations can interoperate? Write
up some I-Ds? Actually come up with refinable solutions to well-scoped
problems? Get the IETF interested for RFCs? Just rough consensus, no
answerable Higher Authority to make virtues out of our neccessities?
*We* have to do all this? Aw, c'mon, that's too much work, too much
RTFM -- we got rent to pay. *We're* the only yon committee on high
we'll ever have??? No way. We don't *want* that. That's definitely
*not* what should^H^H^H^H^H^Hwill happen to the Web.
And, of course, you're not us, you're *them*. We *need* you to
rubber-stamp our fancies. It's all very simple, really. There's
nothing to question^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hflame:-)
Cheers,
ar
--
"You're mostly wrong. Read Arjun Ray's rantings."
-- nevermind <bvv1@crux5.cit.cornell.edu>