- From: Paul Grous <Paul_Grous.NOTES@crd.lotus.com>
- Date: 25 Jun 95 19:00:11 EDT
- To: www-mail <www-mail@crd.lotus.com>
- Cc: "Marc Salomon" <marc@matahari.ckm.ucsf.edu>, www-talk <www-talk@www10.w3.org>, rating <rating@junction.net>, uri <uri@bunyip.com>
[ You wrote: ]
. . .
} This argument has been used against file systems for a long time. You
} really want a sea of objects, etc., etc.. Lots of attempts have been and
} are being made in that direction - but when it comes down to it, J. Random
} User has enough trouble with file system abstractions, they tend to get
} lost if you take those concrete metaphors away. That's not to say that it
} can't be done in a way that will work. But I'd be very specific about the
} user interface aspects before investing too much in the technology.
The difference here is that I'm not proposing the
extensions for users, but for programs. I want my URA to
call Mosaic and ask it to do a connect/fetch, it will then
process the result. Right now, the API doesn't really
support this option so we find ourselves recreating (and
supporting) code that's already written in the browser
elsewhere in the system. If we fix/extend the API, we'll
only need to do this once for an entire system. Users
probably wont care two hoots which part of the system does
the fetch and will presumably appreciate the lower cost
and improved reliability so it seems like the right
approach...
- peterd
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...there is reason to hope that the machines will use us kindly, for
their existance will be in a great measure dependent on ours; they will
rule us with a rod of iron, but they will not eat us...
- Samuel Butler, 1872
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 26 June 1995 18:11:50 UTC