RE: Email access to DAV functionality
Disconnected operation will be addressed, regardless of what the
requirements state. What will probably not be addressed is how e-mail
fits into that picture. Disconnected operation and e-mail are
>From: Dave Hollander [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 2:09 PM
>Subject: Re: Email access to DAV functionality
>I have been lurking on the list for several weeks now and found this
>issue forces me out into the light.
>I find that option 3 is preferable to the other options. While email
>is not my priority, a model for disconnected operation is. As the
>architect for the corporate web group, I am finding that portable
>computers, even though they represent only about 20% of our desktops,
>are a defining design criterion in nearly all of my efforts.
>While resolving the apparent charter conflict between email being in-scope
>while disconnected is out of scope, you can model disconnected operation
>and how email transport can be used to change status/state without a full
>With the extended model, I have hopes of inter-operable solutions that
>can be used. Without it, I might as well extend the gateways used for
>the disconnected/part-time connected population to achieve
>inter-operation, or wait for the next DAV working group.
>Dave Hollander Hewlett-Packard
>Intranet Architect 3404 E. Harmony Road, MS. 6U68
>WebCOE Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
>> 3) Have email and disconnected operation be in-scope for limited contexts:
>> Quoting Larry Masinter (from the same mail message), this might take the
>> form of:
>> >define a kind of "limited disconnected operation",
>> >i.e., where the editor of resource-content is disconnected
>> >from the resource location while editing is taking place,
>> >but must be connected in order to actually update or
>> >interact with the resource.