I agree with defining the functionality. But I would rather define the funtionality without talking about the technologies first. People have a tendency to skew a design by their requirements, and in doing so they leave a lot out.
If a person asked me for a vehicle with four doors, I would automatically think of a car. But maybe they need an airplane. ;-) Tom Abeles wrote: > Hi Andy > > I would defer to the software experts on this list- I know there are a > number of open source asynchronous systems out there. > > Blogs or weblogs started out as personal journals or musings of > individuals. Some have grown a number of similar features to the ones > I have suggested and which have evolved over time. I am interested in > functionality more than trying to differentiate by "type". In reality > many of these ideas are now merging and we are only a few baby steps > away from an open source 3D conference space such as Croquet where > even more flexibility will be available, including avatars. > > If you can define functionality and those here can agree as to what > might be desired, we can see what is available with both functionality > and flexibility. > > thoughts? > -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxgazette.com http://www.a42.com http://www.worldchanging.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
