- 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