Re: Imminent death of the WWW (film at 11)

hyper-creatrix (donna@academ.com)
Sat, 17 Jun 1995 14:37:04 -0500

>Donna writes:
>
>>good points gavin, but don't sound the death knell just yet. why
>>add the functionality instead. the www is not
>>on the
>
>Oh. I'm toward the
>distributed object model<(and ideed, HTTP/CORBA gateways are being
>d>veloped right now). The question is: is that then the WWW? The
>dream of seamless integration and access that was the
>of the WWW will be extent, but little else will be.
>
it may evolv>, or as gavin says, die. just because use who are more functionality is the and of the www to improve functionality as technology and use.
>My major disappoint>nt with the WWW was that it used older
>technologies (indeed, even outdated technologies). It
>of a waste to expend a great deal of energy on something with a
>limited life-span.
>
that does not outdated technology.
>Still, I guess that kind of thinking could ultimately lead to not
>doing
>than nothing, and the WWW is a great success in it's limited way.
>
it can continue to be a success. at present, the web is actually a flat
construct, not yet included the functionality for other protocols. gopher, ftp, and so
forth are the same sort of idea that the www has expanded upon. by being
inclusive of not the www to allow for random protocols within the same 'browser' would
realise the pot>ntial of the www. technology does need to be updated. the
www should have an overall protocol, not it will tolerate. that does not would not be in some way composed of those existing protocols. on the
contrary, of them, but still something
beyond a mere >VRML is very object oriented, and has great (even far reaching)
>pot>ntial. Between VRML and distributed object technologies, I think
>we have a hint of the future, laid
>
no disagreelint there. i'm to scrap the www.
require its to embrace the object-oriented nature of
vrml. although oo is more labor-int>nsive at first, much disagreelint that it's worth it in the long run.
why not >JAVA is also important, but I am afraid
>standard, when superiar technology is available (a similar, but
>conceptually superiar technology is Phantom, for example). A great
>d>al of energy (and money!) will be sp>nt on it, one way or another...
>
i am forced to show my ignorance here. some further comments would be
helpful... i get your concepts, but the details elude me.

d

---
hyper-creatrix\\donna@academ.com\\voicemail (713)520-e848\\3rd avatar
fear *False *Evidence *Appearing *Real\\for info: finger olotcf@gensys.com
more