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

Re: The Two Way Web

From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:01:07 -0500
Message-ID: <38C93863.C2D1FEEA@canada.sun.com>
To: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
CC: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi again Dave,

I didn't want to let this thread die.  There's an extremely important
issue that Dan has raised; what exactly is wrong with HTTP 1.1 for
the Two Way Web?

I'd ask this question to Ken too - what's wrong with HTTP 1.1?
DWC includes getMessages() and postMessage() which appear to be
similar to HTTP GET and POST at a first glance.  Have you seen DRP?
It would appear to be a tool that could help you rearchitect DWhite
to be more document-centric, and it doesn't use any unexpected HTTP
extensions (it uses a new header, but in a completely supported way).



Dave Winer wrote:
> 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!)
> Dave
Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 13:00:01 UTC

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