I think once wiab is at a stage where its (relatively) easy to write clients, all sorts of functionality like email integration or just email-esq styling would come about naturally anyway. Its a pretty obvious move for a developer to do if they see a need. I'd really see the potential for a whole ecosystem of wave clients really, giving different views to the same data and probably ending up with some quite inventive solutions. -Thomas
[/2 cents] ~~~~~~ Reviews of anything, by anyone; www.rateoholic.co.uk Please try out my new site and give feedback :) On 23 February 2011 00:13, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree in general but that isn't what WAIB should be about. That is an ideal > remit for wavelook to pick up. Make their client work with WAIB. > > Like i said it about familiarity, with those sort of users. > > WAIB has enough priorities as it is. The main one begin to show that wave > works > as a technology, and it is easy to implement. Without that different client > functionality is moot. > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sean Wendt <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, 22 February, 2011 22:27:30 > Subject: Re: Question about Wave-Dev > > I think the Outlook extension is a very good example; now if we could build > a wave client that merges an email inbox with a wave inbox then that would > already be satisfactory. For sending an additional set of controls for > setting (recipient, cc, bcc, sender, title and attachments to send) > replacing the wave controls on would do the trick. > Users could convert convert emails into waves and back by stripping > incompatible elements, copying-and-pasting between emails and waves as they > see fit within a single client. > Thunderbird's "Content Tabs" are nice, but still require the user to conform > to a different set of interface conventions for the wave client. > > Would extending, say, Roundcube be more difficult than writing an standalone > wave client for the web? Which would be the most difficult tasks for > building a unified inbox and exchangeable controls? > > I am actually wondering why Google didn't do this with Gmail; they also > popped Buzz into everyone's mail controls one idle Thursday afternoon. > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 13:23, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I actually agree with you almost on every point, however, you just can't >> fight the potential customers/adopters - and they want email-wave >> integration. It wouldn't be a big problem if not the fundamental >> incompatibility. It is easy to convert email into wave, but it is >> impossible >> to convert wave content into HTML without losing information. And it is >> tricky to incorporate email response back into wave. >> So as see it, there are only 2 practical solutions: >> 1) To stretch a bit email capabilities and to cut off wave. You get a well >> integrated solution which is more than email, but a lot less than Wave. >> 2) Leave Wave as is, cut of email - make it just a pluggable wave >> extension. >> It wouldn't allow full email capabilities but would provide just enough to >> be able to send/receive emails with not really convenient user interface. >> It >> would require to relay on Wave for features like calendar, contacts etc.. >> and it wouldn't be as user friendly as integrated email solution. >> I guess that both options will find their uses and users. But, imho, it >> should be clear, that solutions of the first kind , most probably will be >> provided by 3-rd parties and not by the WIAB community. >> 2011/2/22 Paul Thomas <[email protected]> >> >> > Personally I think SMTP is the wrong protocol for Wave. I know that Chris >> > argues >> > that it is essential for enterprise, I actually disagree.The wave/email >> > analogy >> > was always a false one. Currently there is no mature wave services. I >> know >> > that >> > frustrates some people, but frankly it has little to do with lack of >> email >> > integration. Once it is stable there will be little reason to make it >> > analogous >> > to email. >> > >> > >> > >> > There is a big difference between integrating wave technology in any >> client >> > be >> > it email or whatever and merging the two technologies, which I think will >> > be a >> > red headed step child.It is kind of like trying to make phone and email >> > analogous, sure there are ways of bridging the gap but they are clearly >> not >> > the >> > same. You can help streamline forms of communication, like facebook is >> > doing. >> > That gives you a step gap. >> > >> > >> > If wave itself isn't useful to enterprise, no attempts at making it like >> > email >> > is going to make it more useful than email. The primary aim of WAIB is to >> > be >> > easy to set up and useful. >> > >> > >> > >> > Google was slow to open up Wave to open up wave to the open source >> > community. >> > Some people were pissed off by that more than others, and people got >> > different >> > ideas. It is actually quite a tough nut to crack. You can't rush the >> early >> > stages. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Chris Harvey <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Sent: Tue, 22 February, 2011 9:12:35 >> > Subject: Re: Question about Wave-Dev >> > >> > | Does a more elaborated attempt for email integration with wave exist? >> > >> > Yes. The iotaWave project is predicated on the notion that wave and eMail >> > *must* be tightly integrated for wave to make a significant impact on the >> > enterprise market. >> > >> > -- >> > Chris >> > the wave practice <http://thewavepractice.com> >> > iotawave.org >> > Singapore >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
