regarding W3C - i can't agree that it's useless even on it's 'conceptual' parts, of-course there are plenty of specialists that aren't programmers, more like web philosophy scientists, i believe - such a people can be even more productive and inventive than usual apple or google programmers on the list, but they can't program and make tech specs - so - not very often their opinion becomes reality in web, all these years - they (W3C) are 'all' for freedom and by that for accessibility (both semantic and usability), security and privacy, i think - from the very start, but, results are often not desirable as you can see.
Moreover - they have ongoing http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/XGR-socialweb-20101206/ initiative, but i can't see that new networks trying to do it in a valid, standardized way by the start. along with http://d-cent.org/fsw2011/ and there are http://d-cent.org/wiki/ with planned discussion on XMPP and HTML interfederations etc. By the way - are anyone from WiAB are planning to attend that conference? WiAB were invited, as i remember. What i need to say - is that if we want to make Wave tech - to replace 'obsolete' mailing lists, local forums, IRC or other chat systems and maybe even coupled social systems like FB (i guess that was initial goal for Google Wave developers), we should, and things are going in a way of rather major protocol rewriting, it would be better to have in mind all the new things proposed - even such 'innovative' like http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc-charter.html (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2011/05/06/w3c-to-develop-peer-to-peer-browser-standards-40092699), maybe local distributive storages, ability to use distributive computing and other 'progressive' staff. no doubt - many people has a real demand for all of it. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM, ya knygar <[email protected]> wrote: > there was https://github.com/danopia/ruby-on-sails > you can see if their implementation could work for it. > > POW - > https://github.com/alcinnz/PyOfWave > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Perry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> Java and Python frustrate and scare me. Python has lots of issues between >> even minor versions. Java has issues between platforms. In both of these >> languages, I've never had a pleasant user or developer experience. >> >> I was going to suggest Ruby but didn't because I knew this was a Python/Java >> group. >> >> Would it be insane to have parallel implementations? That way, we would >> work out and clearly document any language specific details that might get >> hidden. >> >> On a different topic, can you point me to the POW work? Is that using >> Python in place of Java for the entire implementation? >> >> On May 29, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: >> >>>> Can this be done as a very well documented and commented piece of code >>>> that actually runs? I can understand > code far quicker than I can >>>> understand TechSpeak. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>>> Pick a language like C (not Java or C++). Something that clearly shows >>>> precise intent. It can be a pseudo >>>> language but then we can't test it by running it. >>> >>> I essentially don't know any C, but I certainly approve of usable code >>> so I guess I could try to learn unless as nothing too language >>> specific is needed. >>> >>> In the end though someones going to have to convert it to Java needed >>> for wiab, python for POW and Javascript for webclients side no? >>> Downside of C for a c/s example lib might be no easy testing as theres >>> no server written in C? >>> >>>> >>>> After we're done, we'd not only have a spec but also something useful -- >>>> working code. >>>> >>>> On May 29, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, thats the problem, I haven't either ;) >>>>> I'm currently contributing a bit to the w3c POI standard, but its more >>>>> general advice on whats needed/useful for AR then solid contributions. >>>>> My experience is pretty low really, feeling my way. >>>>> I also don't know anything really about protocols beyond my own bespoke >>>>> stuff. >>>>> >>>>> regarding the name; I'm not sure thats such a good idea as its a bit >>>>> confusable with the "wave federation protocol" itself no? The c/s >>>>> standard might be similar in some ways but it wont be the same. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 May 2011 13:24, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Oh, and Thomas Wrobel, I'd appreciate your help. I've never written a >>>>>> real standard before. >>>>>> >>>>>> How about dropping the "Con". "The Federation", less Firefly more Wave. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Adrian Cochrane >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 04:05 -0700, "Adrian Cochrane" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Well, I just thought that if the name Wave came from Firefly, so should >>>>>>> it's concertium. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be clear, I'd take the task of reworking the standards by placing my >>>>>>> current plans online and taking all the criticism I can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for using the original standards, it's just because then I wasn't >>>>>>> reworking the standards. As for Federation, I'd like that to be simalor >>>>>>> to the current standard (since it's the architecture of PyOfWave). >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Adrian Cochrane >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:54 +0200, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Like call it Moya then, from Farscape ;) >>>>>>>> (hay, it did last longer....) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29 May 2011 12:52, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> face palm. more firefly references...ominous :/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sun, 29 May, 2011 9:58:12 >>>>>>>>> Subject: protocols >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avid Hearnden <[email protected]> Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:36 AM >>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> To: wave-dev <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> There is a technical roadmap (i.e., rich design docs etc, published >>>>>>>>>> somewhere on the site - let me know if you can't find them) for a new >>>>>>>>>> protocol that overcomes many of the issues with the current one, and >>>>>>>>>> works >>>>>>>>>> much better with more advanced features (e.g. diff-on-open). I >>>>>>>>>> don't think >>>>>>>>>> it's a moving target - the doc has been ready for a few months, and >>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>> think anyone has significant changes to it in mind. However, AFAIK, >>>>>>>>>> nobody >>>>>>>>>> who's available has signed up to do the work, so there is no >>>>>>>>>> timeline for >>>>>>>>>> it. I was keen to get into it a few months back, and Alex North was >>>>>>>>>> too, >>>>>>>>>> but both our availabilities have significantly diminished. It's >>>>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>>>> about 2-3 weeks of work for someone to see it through end to end >>>>>>>>>> though. It >>>>>>>>>> was previously blocked by a few things that have now been >>>>>>>>>> implemented. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would strongly encourage not building too much on the current >>>>>>>>>> protocol, >>>>>>>>>> since it has a number of known limitations. The new protocol is >>>>>>>>>> simpler and >>>>>>>>>> achieves a better separation of functionality. If there are a few >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> (PyOfWave?) with the will and a bit of time, then it is very >>>>>>>>>> achievable to >>>>>>>>>> get it rolled out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will be proud to go over it, but (because I want to be liberal) I'd >>>>>>>>> first ask to start >>>>>>>>> with a forum or mailing list which I'd refer to as 'The Confederate' >>>>>>>>> after Firefly T.V. >>>>>>>>> series which gave Wave it's name. I've already exchanged some messages >>>>>>>>> with josephg on GitHub on >>>>>>>>> the shareJS Wave project on this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I planned to work with, if I didn't get proper standardization, >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> the extended original >>>>>>>>> standards (to make up for some lacking features I say), a non-HTTP >>>>>>>>> alternative to Simple Data >>>>>>>>> Protocol, an fully designed Gadget API in a derivative of CoffeeScript >>>>>>>>> (to simplify offline clients), >>>>>>>>> and a URL scheme to serve for embedding, WaveThis, and a alias query >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> groups. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll get started on it provided that I am provided with the necessary >>>>>>>>> information on how to do >>>>>>>>> it. However on my project, I've got some work on PyOfWave to finish. >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for >>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: >>>>>> http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >
