- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:09:08 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Hello, 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 connection. 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. Best Regards, Dave Hollander _________________________________________________________________ Dave Hollander Hewlett-Packard Intranet Architect 3404 E. Harmony Road, MS. 6U68 WebCOE Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 dmh@corp.hp.com 970-229-3192 __________________________________________________________________ > 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.
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 1997 17:17:32 UTC