Alan -- Yes, we seem to slowly getting back the the NeWS (Network extensible Windowing System) paradigm which used a modified Display Postscript to allow the intelligence, including user input, to live in the terminal (as opposed to the X-Windows model). But I am sure I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, here, sorry :-) .
David [[ NeWS = Network extensible Windowing System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS ]] On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Alan Kay <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John > > Or you could look at the actual problem "a web" has to solve, which is to > present arbitrary information to a user that comes from any of several > billion sources. Looked at from this perspective we can see that the > current web design could hardly be more wrong headed. For example, what is > the probability that we can make an authoring app that has all the features > needed by billions of producers? > > One conclusion could be that the web/browser is not an app but should be a > kind of operating system that should be set up to safely execute anything > from anywhere and to present the results in forms understandable by the > end-user. > > After literally decades of trying to add more and more features and not > yet matching up to the software than ran on the machines the original > browser was done on, they are slowly coming around to the idea that they > should be *safely executing programs written by others*. It has only been > in the last few years -- with Native Client in Chrome -- that really fast > programs can be safely downloaded as executables without having to have > permission of a SysAdmin. > > So another way to look at all this is to ask what such an "OS" really > needs to have to allow all in the world to make their own media and have it > used by others ... > > Cheers, > > Alan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Carlson <[email protected]> > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:00 PM > *Subject:* [fonc] Design of web, POLs for rules. Fuzz testing nile > > Although I have read very little about the design of the web, things are > starting to gel in my mind. At the lowest level lies the static or > declarative part of the web. The html, dom, xml and json are the main > languages used in the declarative part. Layered on top of this is the > dynamic or procedural part of the web. Javascript and xslt are the main > languages in the procedural part. The final level is the constraints or > rule based part of the web, normally called stylesheets. The languages in > the rule based web are css1, 2, 3 and xsl. Jquery provides a way to apply > operations in this arena. I am excluding popular server side > languages...too many. > What I am wondering is what is the best way to incorporate rules into a > language. Vrml has routes. Uml has ocl. Is avoiding if statements and > for/while loops the goal of rules languages--that syntax? That is, do a > query or find, and apply the operations or rules to all returned values. > Now, if I wanted to apply probabilistic or fuzzy rules to the dom, that > seems fairly straightforward. Fuzz testing does this moderately well. Has > there been attempts at better fuzz testing? Fuzz about fuzz? Or is brute > force best? > We've also seen probablistic parser generators, correct? > But what about probablistic rules? Can we design an ultimate website w/o > a designer? Can we use statistics to create a great solitaire player--i > have a pretty good stochastic solitaire player for one version of > solitaire...how about others? How does one create a great set of rules? > One can create great rule POLs, but where are the authors? Something like > cameron browne's thesis seems great for grid games. He is quite prolific. > Can we apply the same logic to card games? Web sites? We have "The Nature > of Order" by c. Alexander. Are there nile designers or fuzz > testers/genetic algorithms for nile? > Is fuzz testing a by product of nile design...should it be? > If you want to check out the state of the art for dungeons and dragons > POLs check out fantasy grounds...xml hell. We can do better. > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
