- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:32:39 -0600
- To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jim Whitehead wrote: > 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. From first hand experience and a limited amount of anecdotal evidence, I think that disconnected operation (at least the sort that Larry writes about) would be very valuable. On the other hand, after noodling about it quite a bit, the design doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Note that email might be insufficient for the the sort of disconnected operation that Larry mentions: an update operaition might involve one or more synchronous operations (i.e. round-trips). I'd like to hear from experienced designers/implementors on this issue: is disconnected operation a long-standing research issue, or a straighforward engineering excercise? or something in-between? Dan
Received on Thursday, 27 February 1997 00:32:53 UTC