the way i see it new replies in a wave can be emailed, but the big problem is how do you deal with a wave being reply being changed, eg how do you 'bake down' the dynamic nature of a wave into static email form.
a few ideas : email every change as a reply in a message thread = extremely tedious emails where you see very miniscule difs, could possibly be solved by only emailing when a data change is past a certain percentage threshold of the original reply. email that a change has taken place in a reply but do not send those contents = same problem as before a server side variable that will send a dif of changes periodically, this would smooth over the tedious minute to minute possible changes in any wave entry? none of these seem ideal, the other option is a 'publish' feature wherein you freeze a reply at that point it will be emailed out and you can no longer make changes to it. curious what others think about dynamic to static content conversion. lastly i really think wave's potential as a fast way to display data to the public internet is also a really big killer application of wave but that is a side point. i am just going to go ahead and start a wave on my own wave server that will be a brainstorm and discussion area for wave. if anyone wants to join up its at http://7rnx.net:9898 i am te...@7rnx.net if you register on it and tell me your username ill add you to that wave. fleeky On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > The acid test, is it not. > > Hopefully it's done in a way that enables both listserv/email integration > and synchronisation as well as the ability to drop other UIs on top of the > API to expose different aspects of the data set. The most compelling use > case will be a) I really can replace my email server with Wave for > collaborative communications whilst synchronising with those who are still > on email servers and b) I don't have to duplicate data sets to get more > value - I just use different components of a given wave, sometimes with > other UIs. > All the best, > > John Blossom > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Alfredo Abambres < > alfredoabamb...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > *Upayavira* > > * > > * > > Thanks for your explanation, the reasons you stated are extremely valid > and > > important. > > > > --- > > > > About *Upayavira *and *Pratik Paranjape *idea/suggestion of setting up a > > test project for this > > * > > * > > I can't help much in terms of servers and hard-code, but I can assist on > UI > > design and, if needed?, promoting and helping discussions (the What is > > Wave? link that I shared before is an example of what we're doing) > > > > Would a Wiab like this > > http://waveinabox.net/<http://waveinabox.net/auth/signin?r=/> be > > enough or we would need to develop a different kind of client? > > > > > > http://alfredo.abambres.com > > > > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Pratik Paranjape < > > pratikparanj...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Awesome! > > > > > > Then perhaps we should take it as our first use case both to showcase > > Wave > > > to others and to test how well we are doing. It will drive us towards > > most > > > of the functional goals we want to have in the end. Most engineers will > > > feel better if they know what the purpose of the building is and where > it > > > is supposed to be placed. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013, at 08:28 PM, Pratik Paranjape wrote: > > > > > There can be a workaround at some point though. > > > > > > > > > > We can have discussions going on a Wave server for Wave project and > > > make > > > > > sure that all messages are forwarded to this > > > > > mailing list as well. If someone responds here, we can have wave > pull > > > it > > > > > out and merge into wave discussion. Interesting > > > > > use case and fits with what we are trying accomplish. > > > > > > > > > > Realistically, its not going to be easy for a whole organization to > > > > > replace > > > > > its primary communication platform unless something > > > > > equally proven comes along. > > > > > > > > > > Another point will be: who reliably pays for the server once it has > > > > > traffic? In such places, like John mentioned, funding comes handy. > > > > > > > > The sorts of intermediates you mention would be the right kind of > > > > approach - maintaining the accessibility people currently appreciate > > > > with mailing lists, while providing another approach also. > > > > > > > > As to funding, while Apache doesn't pay people to develop software, > it > > > > does have funds to cover server hardware, if a good case can be put > > > > forwards. > > > > > > > > If folks wanted a place to run a test wave server, for 'collective > > > > play', it wouldn't be too hard to arrange a VM for the purpose. > > > > > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > > > > >
