On 27 November 2010 09:28, x00 <[email protected]> wrote: > Those sound reasonable. However I think it really hard know for sure > how WIAB and derivatives are going to be used in the furure. It is > important that anything that is proposed doesn't create schism, when > there is a change of culture. that mean it has to be non limiting and > disposable. - > > I while back I proposed a public via proxy "group" idea. The essence > is that interaction including access control is moderated by the proxy > agent, negating the need for predefined roles. >
I don't recall this, so perhaps I didn't understand it when you proposed it. Would you be willing to write a more detailed outline (in another thread or a wave, perhaps)? Or point to one if you've already done so and I just missed it. > Groups and robots, etc will be hard to figure out how to federate. > Until something like distributed agent code, or simply a way to figure > out how to distribute defined interaction and automation is made. It > also has to perform it can't bee too slow. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
