W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2000

Re: The Two Way Web

From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:53:27 -0800
Message-ID: <1eb601bf8520$3bb70100$1918ccce@murphy>
To: "Mark Baker" <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Cc: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
Hi Mark!

For a browser-based web content system, you do not need any kind of RPC. We
use HTML forms with textareas in Manila, just like Wiki.

There's a lot of info about Manila on the web, the RPC interface,
marketing/positioning materials, even a site where you can create your own
Manila site to experiment with. We've started over 3000 new sites in the
last couple of months, our users are very excited about where it's going. As
I said in the piece later this month we'll release a desktop writing tool
for Windows/Mac that hooks into the RPC interfaces, imho, the first true
network-centered writing tool that isn't a web browser.

But I don't want to just hurl URLs at you guys. One step at a time..

About WebDAV, that's a FAQ. I don't like WebDAV. I don't know many other
people who do. Nice way to do websites if you're a Word user who doesn't
want to dive into the Web. That's not my market. (I can already feel the
flames coming at me. Hi Alex!)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Baker" <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
Cc: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>;
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 6:23 AM
Subject: The Two Way Web

> Hi Dave,
> Dave Winer wrote:
> > After the BOF I put all my thoughts together, and gave a keynote speech
> > XTech from that, so anyone who wants to know what I think can read it,
> > without transcription error.
> >
> > http://davenet.userland.com/2000/03/02/theTwowayweb
> Too bad I couldn't be there, but that was a good read.  Thanks.
> Some questions though, if you don't mind.
> In your talk, you said;
> > I heard people say yesterday that they've never heard a reason why
> > XML-RPC technology is needed, but hopefully at this point no one can
> > say that.  I believe the Two-Way-Web is the most compelling vision
> > since the Web itself.
> Why do you believe those two sentences go hand-in-hand?  What's
> wrong with WebDAV[1] for the two-way-web?  Or even Wiki[2] if
> low-tech is ok?
>  [1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/
>  [2] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb
> MB
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 09:53:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC