- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 08:50:17 -0600
- To: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
- CC: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>, "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu
Mark Baker wrote:
> Dave Winer wrote:
[...]
> > http://davenet.userland.com/2000/03/02/theTwowayweb
>
> Too bad I couldn't be there, but that was a good read. Thanks.
Indeed.
> 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?
Good question.
> What's
> wrong with WebDAV[1] for the two-way-web?
Or just HTTP 1.1? See:
Editing the Web: Detecting the Lost Update Problem Using Unreserved
Checkout
10 May 1999
http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/
and our Amaya editor that uses the libwww HTTP 1.1 implementation
to detect lost updates using HTTP 1.1 ETags
http://www.w3.org/Amaya/
and Jigsaw, the server implementation, backed by CVS:
http://www.w3.org/Jigsaw/
I use it daily. Works great.
WebDAV is essential for other kinds of management operations, and it
helps get digest authentication deployed, but for
just GET/PUT, HTTP 1.1 is all you need.
> Or even Wiki[2] if
> low-tech is ok?
Wiki is cool. Sometimes I wonder if it's the technology or that
group of people. But the result is cool, regardless.
> [1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/
> [2] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb
>
> MB
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office phone (thru approx. Mar 2000) tel:+1-512-310-2971
pager (put return tel# in From or Subject field)
mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 09:52:53 UTC