Reactions to
Weaving the Web
by Tim Berners-Lee

Chapters 8 & 9: WWW Consortium

Lindsay Alaishuski
After hearing all what Berners-Lee had to say about the Consortium, in my own mind I was trying to figure out where I think it stands in regards to the World Wide Web. They are a diverse group of well-educated businesspeople (mostly men- GRRR!) that had something to do with either creating or advancing the Web. It is a fact that the W3C stand on top of the Web and hover over it. Nothing in this world, even Bill Gates, is powerful enough to do that. So where does the W3C actually fit into the picture? While Berners-Lee thinks it has a 'center-stage' role, I believe it stands much lower on the totem pole of technology than that. I think of this consortium as almost being the cinders of a fire. They're there, and they've done something to get the fire started, but the fire is already well under way and doesn't need much help now. The W3C was a great (and necessary idea), but its importance is dwindling, in my opinion. If this consortium was so important, don't you think most people would've heard of it by now?? I never did until reading this book. In forming my opinion, I also took into account of the recent progress of the W3C. It seems to me that they didn't accomplish anything outstanding or resolve any huge conflicts, so they didn't impress me too much. I am curious to hear if they will do anything susbstantial in the rest of the book or if they have done anything since the time of printing.

Another thing I'd like to mention is how Berners-Lee hoped the "web would not be an isolated tool... or a mirror of real life". He wanted the Web to weave into our life, which it has. However, I look at the last phrase of that quote, and it made me think of how many ways the Web is Weaving. We have Virtual Art Museums and Virtual Dissection Kits- so many things now have "Virtual" Counterparts. It may seem that we have a mirror on our hands, but as long as the real things are still available, these virtualities are just providing more options to us and making our life more diverse, in a web-like sort of way.

Final comment: Although many of us (including myself) have complaints about the style in which this book is written, I have found a positive. I think it's neat to be reading a chapter and thinking of this burning question you have, and then reading the question in the next page or two. It happened to me on several occasions in these 2 chapters, such as my question of "So how did Netscape get so rich if they offered their product for free?" or "What made Java so great?" Either I formulate good questions while reading or this book is psychic. :-)

Diana Applegate
Although Berners-Lee went a little overboard with the nitty-gritty details of how the consortium operated, I was interested to learn that W3C had such a big influence on certain web-related issues that are stil = being discussed today. Since I wasn't aware of the consortium's existence prior to reading this book, I had no idea that W3C had such a key role in the pornography/free speech issue. As Berners-Lee points out, the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) was an important factor in helping the courts realize that the proposed Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional. The web, like any other mass media, was not to be censored or controlled. If it was to be a universal medium, as Berners-Lee envisioned it, then anyone should be able to post anything they wanted to, and this content (in theory) should be accessible to anyone. The PICS idea allowed parents and guardians to monitor their child's web usage and to filter out objectionable content by using new software packages, as opposed to having the government impose unconstitutional restrictions on the web.

I also liked reading about the early browser wars between Netscape and Microsoft. Both of these companies have become household names, yet I was largely unaware of how they became involved with the web. Netscape's free, downloadable version of Navigator encouraged other companies to create powerful freeware tools for public use. They knew they'd be able to make money through other products, services, and advertising. The majority of the webpages I visit each day are infested with ad banners that attempt to distract me from the task at hand. The hypertext format has proven to be very lucrative for the advertising industry since the web surfer is able to click on an ad if they so desire and return to where they were by simply using the browser's "back" button. But once one gets started clicking from page to page and getting sucked into the hypertext web, it is sometimes difficult to find the way out! The release of Navigator and Internet Explorer forced online services like Prodigy, Compuserve and AOL to make some big changes. I can vaguely remember using Prodigy during 9th or 10th grade from home, but interestingly enough I absolutely cannot remember what I did when I logged on. I don't think I actually accessed the web, but instead was looking at Prodigy's pre-packaged version of the news, weather, etc. I most likely spent most of my time experimenting with email. It truly =amazes me that expensive services like AOL are still so popular, despite the fact that the web itself has become so much more user-friendly in the past few years. People have become increasingly dependent on services like AOL, who try to get users to believe that they have SO much more to offer. In reality, these services are taking what's out on the web in terms of content and changing the layout a bit in order to make people think that such information is exclusive to them. Therefore, users get roped into thinking that they wouldn't be able to surf the web without the help of AOL. There are tons of free, online communities, chats and special interest groups available on the web itself. Services like AOL take advantage of the common man's lack of knowledge about the web, and continue to make millions while doing so.

It seems like the consortium had a huge influence on the web and those involved with it during its formative stages. I wonder how influential the consortium is today as compared to a few years ago? Is it something that most people heavily involved with the web would know about? I assume that the consortium will always have numerous issues on the table since the web always seems to be growing and evolving.

Hilary Chamberlain
I think it's really funny that at first Bill Gates dismissed the web as no big deal, and didn't think it was important enough to incorporate into his software. Guess he was realyl wrong about that, huh?! I think it was a very wise decision to form the W3C to try and create sort of a neutral governing body to help connect problems with solutions, and to keep an even playing field, sort of. I also like how he says they offer "recommendations" instead of requirements, which really promotes people doing their own thing. Could we talk about the different computer languages? They talk about XTML, HTML, SGM, etc, but I really don't understand exactly what the difference is. I also find the bit about CERN restricting it's funding, because it reminded me of last week's discussion, when we were talking about how he was sort of running a lot of his programs on the sly, and then here he's like "and thank you so much for letting me work on this project, etc etc."

On page 107 he talks about the commercial gain, and how he didn't give much thought to it, because "Information that is putup for commercial gain can't be excluded." Well, I can understand that point, but it seems like every time you go to the web and the internet, you run into flashing annoying commercials that pop up at every page, and sites sell your name, it's just as annoying as junk mail. Only in some ways I think it's worse because people don't spend hours looking through junk mail, but they do spend hours searching for stuff on the web.

Catherine Chen

"People have sometimes asked me whether I am upset that I have not made a lot of money from the Web. In fact, I made some quite conscious decisions about which way to take my life. These I would not change- though I am making no comment on what I might do in the future. What does distress me, though, is how important a question it seems to be to some. This happens mostly in America, not Europe. What is maddening is the terrible notion that a person's value depends on how important and financially succesful they are, and that that is measured in terms of money. That suggests disrespect for the researchers across the globe developing ideas for the next leaps in science and technology. Core in my upbringing was a value system that put monetary gain well in its place, behind things like doing what I really want to do. To use net worth as a criterion by which to judge people is to set our children's sights on cash rather than on things that will actually make them happy." (108)

How are we as students to reconcile the need to make a living for ourselves with a profession/things that will actually make us happy? I think Berners-Lee view of "money's place" is very idealistic and noble, and I wish that I had had his upbringing. Unfortunately, I'm a materialistic American student who thinks Berners-Lee ought to at least have made a small bundle off of the Web as its creator, maybe to store it away for a rainy day or to invest for his children, who presumably will grow up American. I think to some extent that Americans do place some value on financial success and importance, but that it's part of the American dream. It must be comforting to know that with his brains and technical expertise, he could probably make a lot of money if he wanted to. If I knew of a profession that I would excel at and that would make me happy for the rest of my life, I'd go for it!

"The Web is more a social creation than a technical one. I designed it for a social effect- to help people work together- and not as a technical toy. The ultimate goal of the Web is to support and improve our weblike existence in the world. We clump into families, associations, and companies. We develop trust across the miles and distrust around the corner. What we believe, endorse, agree with, and depend on is representable, and increasingly, represented on the Web. We all have to ensure that the society we build with the Web is the sort we intend." (123)

I'm surprised by the first sentence because oftentimes I hear the Web being criticized for removing human contact. I don't have an online community. It also takes longer to type to somebody through Instant Messenger than it takes to talk to them about the same topics. If you want to get something done, you call somebody, you don't wait for them to email you back. In some ways, the Web helps people work together, I suppose in coordinating schedules and information sharing. Who will build this electronic society and what will we intend?

"Company fortunes and organizational triumphs do not matter to our future as Web users nearly as much as fundamental sociotechnological issues that could make or break the Web." (125)

Startups will come and go, but the Web must stay alive! I'm still boggled by Berners-Lee's total lack of interest in financial gain. Not that it means everything, but if everyone else is making money, it seems unfair that as the creator he is not benefitting financially.

Sarah Crown
Primarily, I was once again extremely startled by how recently the developments of the web occurred. I did not realize that it was not until November of 1994 that Microsoft announced that it would placing the MSN on Windows 95 and that Netscape (even though it had been created under another name) came into existence. I can remember the excitement that was raised when Windows 95 was becoming available; however, at the time, I paid little attention to what was occurring, nor I realize that its amount of publicity was based upon its Internet browser.

Secondly, I was pleased that Tim Berners-Lee disagreed with society's emphasis on the value of money. As he states: What is maddening is the terrible notion that a persons value depends on how important and financially successful they are, and that is measured in terms of money (107).

I thoroughly agree with his statement, but I think that it was very courageous of him to state this value in his book. Many of the people which will be reading his book are inevitably people who may of asked him how much he has made off of the web or people who do judge others based upon what college/grad school he/she attended, his/her salary, and his/her prestige. I think it is important that he raised this issue so that those who hold such values can question their beliefs.

While I feel everyone has very different values and everyone should not have the same beliefs, I think it is important to question whatever values one does have, for it is in this manner that one can grow as a person. I also think that while I completely agree with his statement, that it is almost inevitable that subconsciously I probably have judged some in this manner. I dont agree with doing this, but I think that many people subconsciously do judge others based on their financial status and prestige. And, I think its important to recognize this, so that one can realize when he/she is judging someone in this manner.

Huong Dang
Tim was very optimistic (and still is) about the consortium's formation, growth, and motives. He mentions the consortium's system similarly to that of the American government, e.g. he being the executive, et cetera. February '95, annual meeting of the G7, the world's seven wealthiest nations (which are?) Optimism on the forefront for Web technology: Thabo Mbeki, deputy president of South Africa had some good points Tim mentioned:

" we should seize the new technology to empower themselves; to keep themselves informed about the truth of their own economic, political, and cultural circumstances; and to give themselves a voice that all the world could hear."(102)

"I made it clear that I had designed the Web so there should be no centralized place where someone would have to "register" a new server, or get approval of its content. Anybody could build a server and put anything on it. ... Technically. if there was any centralized point of control, it would rapidly become a bottleneck that restricted the Web's growth, adn the Web would never scale up. Its being 'out of control' was very important." (99)

Again, Tim mentions his primary goal of this project, but the consequences of open space, which was "designed as a universal medium(106)," leads to consequences :

the Censorship Hurdle:
rapid growth of pornography on the Web (112)
Communications Decency Act: "proposed ... to regulated content on the Net."(113)
BACKLASH => "civil rights group challenged it in the courts. Ultimately, it was overthrown as unconstitutional." (114)

However, Tim mentions that the "existence of PICS was an important factor in helping the courts see that the act(Communications Decency Act) was inappropriate, that protection could be provided without regulation..."(114) It shows that not all men are bad and need not have government control.

And then there was Gates: his mission to use his genius in technology and business combined to make the ultimate system -> browser with his Windows 98, succinctly eliminating his competitors. But the US Department of Justice and their leader, Janet Reno, saw Gates's motives raised the "question ... whether or not Microsoft was using its market dominance to destroy competition. (creating a monopoly) By including the browser with Windows 98, it maintained, the company effectively eliminated any reason for anyone to purchase Netscape Navigator." (117) And we can't have that in America.

Again, a very dry read.

Beth Fedornak
In these chapters Tim discusses his mission statement for the web: "The web would not be a isolated tool used by people in their lives, or even a mirror of real life; it would be part of the very fabric of the web of life we all help weave". This was strong statement considering he was attempting to bring the many inventors of web related products together. To join as a team to make the web useful and available to all who wanted access.

With the introduction of a free browser such as Netscape and the introduction of Microsoft's Windows 95 customers now had an easier way to become familiar with the web. We also saw big business at work when each person who wanted to join the consortium gave $50,000 to become a member. This might sound like a lot of money but you have to consider the companies overall net worth. Considering Netscape sold stock in their company (one that had yet to earn a profit) and made approx. 4.4 billion, $50,000 would be considered a small drop in the bucket.

We also so the Internet become more sophisticated with the introduction of sites that carried photo's, graphics and audio. Now that the ball was rolling it was not surprising how fast things developed.

As far as the legal concerns are I'm glad that the government was not able to censor the web. Personally I feel that sometimes people get over zealous and try and push their views on other people. We must remember that we are all entitled to our own opinion and we shouldn't have to seek approval by others.

Yun Jin Jun
One interesting point Berners-Lee mentioned about the web was the importance of its being "out of control." It is amazing to see that the web operates without anyone's control behind. I think the fact that the web is out of control lets everyone have access to it and makes the web evolve and improve much faster than any other mass media. Also I found it interesting to see Berners-Lee's thought on money issue. I agree with his view point on how American people's ideals are based on financial success and social status. Even when Berners-Lee was on a TV program, the first question the anchor asked was how rich he was. He mentioned in the book that he didn't invent the web just to make a profit from it but he invented it because he wanted to do it and that was what motivated him. It is frustrating to see how money is becoming the ultimate goal and the standard measure for many of the people in this society. It was interesting to look at what perspective Berners-Lee had on the web's going commercial and other people's making profits from the web.

Jin Joo Kim
After the discussion on chapter one through seven, reading the following chapter I do recognize some awkward writing styles here and there. However, I am being a trilingual who is not really fluent on any does not qualify me for a good judge for such an issue. However, thank you for your detailed comments on them.

I had to look up exactly what 'consortium' means. Basically, it's an agreement. Tim Berners deserves credit in recognizing the fact that we need some sort of consensus while how much credit he deserves is whole other issue. I felt as though he was promoting W3C, which I personally had no idea that existed. I am not even quite sure what kind of authority (though non-central it should be) and influence it has on its members. More importantly, its practical effectiveness is still a mystery for me even after reading chapter 8 and 9.

Did I sense some sarcasm toward Bill Gates on the bottom of the last full paragraph of page 108? Also, I am not sure if I understand the last paragraph on page 116 through the second full paragraph of page 117 well enough to say something about it. Could someone help me during the discussion?

Ning Lin
These two chapters talk about the development of web at the early stage and I have some personal thoughts about the reading. The development of web is not a pure technology issue, but also a business and social issue. After the invention of original web server, there was still a long way to go to make it widely accepted and extended to be part of the modern life. Tim Berner-lee expected the consortium to operate in a way that reflected a web-like existence. I really like the way he described the Web as " not be an isolated tool used by people in their lives, or even a mirror of real life; it would be part of the very fabric of the web of life we all help weave." When the necessary structure to support further development was set up as the consortium, its open process left the space for different companies and individuals to "voice their personal ideas and find ways to reach common understanding". Web is a reflection of our collective and open life and only very liberal atmosphere of the consortium could help the web to develop in the right direction as author originally expected. Especially at the beginning of development, a lot of different opinions and open consensus were needed to criticize and improve web. In this way, the competition between business companies help to develop newer browsers with more advanced functionality. More problems were found and solutions were exploited the function and structure of the net work became more complete and advanced. For example, the net work security problem was solved as one of the top priorities to set up net work business. Later, more criticism about Web made by the public about students' access to improper material online pulled out another socially concerned problem. Fortunately, the PICS was released as a solution to the public.

In this way, web is modified by little and accepted by more and more people, because it kept a very fast pace of developing newer technology to satisfy the demand of users. Competition and consensus can be regarded as two major forces to push the development of web forward all the time.

Jennifer Picagli
This section of the book seems to be the more technical of the two 'parts' of the bok we have read so far. Berners-Lee is finally documenting the evolution of the Web outside those projects he is directly involved with and there is finally a good overall description of the evolution. Nothing in particular struck me, other than his hopefulness for XML, which has not yet seen much regular use.

What does confuse me is that I thought there were HTML standards from the consortium, and browsers are rated by their comformity to supporting different aspects of the standards. For example, I use IE, Netscape, and Opera interchangably for the most part, but no one writes plugins for Opera and it doesn't support the latest technology, besides not being open-source. I started using IE because Netscape crashes upon encountering certain Java applications. There is no reason I should have to have three browsers - the fast one, the one I've always used and is open source - and the one that works. I suppose the consortium does offer 'standards' and they are occasionally accepted by the companies which make the browsers, but it would be nice if one browser did support The Conventions, eliminating my need for two.

Another thing which I noticed was B-L's avoidance of any questions that had to do with financial gain. He seemed to be trying to avoid commenting on the fact that he originally envisoned this project as an information exchange device. For some part you can still see parts of the web trying to 'keep to themselves' -- the academic keeping to itself, the commercial keeping to itself, the corporations keeping to themselves mostly, and the rest of the web connected in a fairly poor way.

One last comment; this section was jargon intensive. If he wanted this to be a publicly accessable book, he should have put in a brief glossary.

Grace Shin
It really does amaze me to read how the competition of the web started. I think that Berners-Lee is correct to say that he really cannot expect the web to be purely non-profit organizations. Obviously, today, the web consists of everything from email to all different types of stores online to the news to encyclopedias and more. The WWW consortium is interesting because although there really isn't a central part of the web, there still exists a core of people where everything originated. The fact that anyone can build a server and put anything on the server is an important aspect of the web. I especially liked the fact that Tim Berners-Lee wants the web to be out of control. Although I still don't quite understand how something so massive which we take for granted could have been put together. Also, even though I don't really understand how one can set up a server, it is quite evident that the fact that anyone can set one up is crucial in developing of the web so that it is out of control.

I found it quite interesting that the stocks for netscape were bought so quickly. In this aspect, I realized that when the gold search is on, it is impossible to keep people from improving on it and gaining from it. I tried to think back to when I realized that the browser was part of the computer. I've only had the personal internet connection since 11th grade when my dad allowed us to get aol. Even then, however, I don't think I realized that massiveness of the internet and the web. As I read the book, my knowledge is being expanded to not just "the web" but different parts of the web and the different histories of the web.

I also looked at the website www.w3.org and saw many of the ideas and hypertext discussed in the book. I think that this website is a good site for us to look at and maybe even write about. I realized how many websites are out there which can really inform us about the history of the web, as new as it may be. Even the different major companies like the Microsoft site have information about the consortium. I guess a final thought to be pondered about would be who actually regulates the web, and if there isn't anyone or any specific place regulating the web, what does the consortium play in the ever growing concept of the web?

Bonnie Underwood
first of all, i liked Berners-Lee's web reference to the web of life that we all help weave. i thought it was interesting how during our discussion of the first seven chapters, a few people mentioned the whole money thing. in this chapter, Berners-Lee said the web was becoming a business - a business that cost $2 million to design a web code. I started getting confused when he began talking about finding "minimum agreements." I did find it kind of exciting how in chapter 9, all of these companies and programs that we all use were part of this project - microsoft, netscape, java, etc. Towards the end i thought that Berners-Lee seemed naive and unknowing when all of this was occurring (although that may not be the case). this was also the case with the publicity issues, etc.

Annie Zipper
These two chapters chronicled the development of the Web throughout the 90's as web began to enjoy more widespread use. The initial creation stage of the Web is now over, so the focus is now on spreading word of it and making it accessible to all, which Berners-Lee stresses again and again.

I found his response to the question of how he feels about the Web "going commercial," a question I was wondering myself, intriguing. His vision of the Web thus far seems very pure and ideal-it should be used as it was intended, as a tool for gaining information and communicating with the world. He seemed to side-step the question in his response at the beginning of Chapter 9, blaming society for valuing a person's worth by their wealth and not their worth. He does concede that it was inevitable for the Web to "go commercial" at some point because America is a capitalist society. He seems to blame America more than Europe for making the Web a money-making device. He makes this point in Chapter 9 about his own personal wealth:

"People have sometimes asked me whether I am upset that I have not made a lot of money from the Web... What distresses me, though, is how important a question it seems to be to some. This happens mostly in America, not Europe."

When I read this, it sounded more like Berners-Lee was trying to console himself for not cashing in on the Web as much as others did. In the sentence before this one he says of his decisions in his life,

"These I would not change-though I am making no comment on how what I might do in the future."

Another issue dealth with in these chapters is censorship. This doesn't become an issue until the late-90's when the Web had gained much commercial popularity. I was impressed by how well the W3C dealt with the issue. If they had overreacted (or allowed others to) to people's concerns about children viewing inappropriate material, the free access of the Web could have been damaged. Instead they found a solution that continued to keep the control of the Web with the people who use it and not the goverment. Overall, Berners-Lee seemed very pleased with the W3C, which he described at the beginning of Chapter 8 as being a kind of living version of the Web. The Consortium's ability to function so well must have been another validation for Berners-Lee's Web.

Alicia Zukas
The concept I found most intriguing once again reflects Berners-Lee's idealism. The fact that he did not want to have a control center for the web, and tried to make the consortium more of a positive atmosphere for web development rather than a central base indicates that he was not interested in his own merit. On page 99, he wanted to prevent the "bottleneck effect." He also wants to give CERN more credit than what they received as a result of allowing such free-behavior during the web's initial development. Mosaic becomes Netscape, and releases Navigator, formally known as Mozilla. This part of the novel is where all of the pieces start fitting into place to develop the web known to us, today. While Berners-Lee appears to have some tension with Gates, I believe he gives him his deserved credit, while also making Gates' financial interests known.

While commercialism has become a problem on the web- being bombarded with advertisements- the author puts a new perspective on this:

"A hypertext link must be able to point to anything. Information that is put up for commercial gain can't be excluded." The author finds that the web's success is a result of promoting free software downloads. By introducing such commercialism, such as the ISPs and shrink-wrapped software from other sources, Berners-Lee is faced with the media's interview questioning him, "...exactly how rich are you?" (115).

Censorship is an interesting and heated issue is these chapters. We have all seen the rating systems and parental control on our ISPs, but it still remains a problem, as Deepak had stated: we are only 6 clicks away from explicit material. I am sure this will make for heated discussion in Thursday's class: How controlled should the web be, and who will control it? Do we need the "bottleneck" control?

<	BACK to Reactions