- From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:40:20 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi Dan, On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 06:43 -0500, John Kemp wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I finally completed ACTION-352 ("Integrate whiteboard drawings into a prose document about ways to distribute applications") by writing a document called "A Taxonomy of Web Applications" at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/web-apps-taxonomy/web-apps-taxonomy.html >> >> Comments are much appreciated. > > Nice. > > I think including a few specific deployed examples would improve it. Sure... I can do that. > > In the Client-side Static case... my understanding of widgets > is that they're carefully isolated; i.e. there are no mash-ups. Yes, I agree with that. I had originally put the word "mash-up" in quotes on that picture, but I decided I would then have to explain the difference between the quoted "mash-up" and the unquoted mash-up on the other pages ;) > So an example of one of these mash-ups would be particularly > helpful to me. I think the point is that the client (widget platform) becomes itself a relatively static mashup of widgets. > > p.s. What diagramming tool did you use? Um, just Powerpoint, converted to jpegs. > Oops... the headings > are part of the diagrams... I can't select the text. Sorry - I usually use ASCII art diagrams, but that would have been too twisted for this, I think. Regards, - johnk > > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 15:47:32 UTC