Text 764, 166 rader
Skriven 2007-03-24 21:43:25 av Michael Cassidy (34.ftscpubl)
    Kommentar till text 762 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
Ärende: Re: Fidonet, XML, Internet
==================================
"Peter Knapper" <peter.knapper@3:772/1.10> wrote in message 
news:<4605C228.32.ftscpubl@bbs.logartsol.com>...
> Hi Michael,
>
>  MC> Hello, everyone.  I have been out of Fidonet for a while,
>
> Welcome back! I would be interested in hearing your reasons for "leaving" 
> and
> now returning to Fidonet...

Thanks.  I left because of things in my life that took me in a different 
direction.
I am back because I missed the fun I had when I was here.

>
>  MC> and am just recently
>  MC> trying to become a more active member in having a local
>  MC> community (virtual),
>  MC> which is what I believe a BBS really is, that is also internationally
>  MC> connected, which is what I believe Fidonet is and should be -- a 
> means for
>  MC> connecting smaller communities and connect parts of
>  MC> them to make more (virtual)
>  MC> international communities.
>
> This part of your message relates to what Maurice and I are discussing, 
> and
> brings about the difference between what Fidonet is, and what a BBS is.

I agree they are different, but both should be taken into account when 
discussing
Technology.

>
> I see the 2 entities as being completely separate, but also in need of 
> each
> other. Fidonet barely discusses how a BBS should operate, other than 
> describe
> the interface point between the BBS and Fidonet (EG message formats), 
> however
> if you change the user interface for Fidonet then you MUST accomodate all
> existing Systems in Fidonet, at the risk of cutting them off completely.

The item above is exactly what I was referring to, and I appologize that my 
message
Was not very clear about it.  If the message formats and the nodelists were
moved to an XML based technology, then new items could be added (if the 
schema
and programs are done right), and the new xml programs and services could 
still
function and their authors could choose to implement support for the added 
items
or not, but their technology would still run without error, as long as 
backwards
Compatibility is maintained with schema changes.

>
> Please note that what I am NOT saying is that your thoughts are wrong, but 
> have
> you really thought it through considering all existing Fidonet members.

I believe that before a certain part of the technology could be updated 
there
would have to be free translator components or filters built that could 
translate
the xml data bundle into the older format.  But the existence of the 
translators
or their exact implementation would not necessarily have to delay work on
designing the schemas.

>
> Can I even dare to suggest that from my perspective, I dont see Fidonet as 
> an
> ideal platform on which to build your desires, I am confident that there 
> are
> better ways of acheiving your desires (at Fidonets loss).
>

No offence, but I think you are making a big assumption about what my 
desires are.
I desire to see Fidonet adopt new technologies, especially in the echomail, 
netmail
and nodelist areas, which I believe will provide a catalyst to breathe new 
lifeblood
into our beloved network.

>
>  MC> If we really
>  MC> want Fidonet to begin to grow again and flourish (I
>  MC> know I do), we have got to
>  MC> adjust to the future.  This means we have got to find a
>  MC> way for BBS systems and
>  MC> message networks to "grow up" a little bit.
>
> So you are really talking about a BBS here, and the only reason that 
> Fidonet
> comes into it is because its the transport mechanism for the BBS. I do 
> think it
> is VITAL that people differentiate between the 2 elements, because a 
> transport
> mechanism such Fidonet can theoretically move anything around.

Again, I think I did not explain very well. I only mentioned the BBS to show
one example of how current work is happening to make it possible to bring
Fidonet to a wider more modern audience.

>
>  MC> ... and I always ask myself -- "Why hasn't fidonet
>  MC> moved to adopt some of
>  MC> the new technologies, which would allow people such as myself to 
> enter the
>  MC> arena and provide functionality and capabilities
>  MC> without having to go back and
>  MC> re-learn/re-member old technologies that I have left behind?".
>
> The reality is that Fidonet HAS moved on, the bulk of Fidonet traffic is 
> no
> longer using the PSTN, its using the internet for transport. What you are
> talking about is simply the presentation of the content that Fidonet is
> transporting.

I wasn't really talking specifically about PSTN or Internet transports.  I
think that what I am proposing is not specific to any sort of transport 
mechanism.

>
> And in case its not already obvious, I am against putting graphical 
> content
> into the BBS interface, that is simply turning a BBS into something that
> already exists in another format, a Web Server, however there are many 
> other
> issues surrounding that. I think what you are wanting can much more easily 
> be
> done using other technologies already in use today.

I am neither arguing for or against putting graphical content into any BBS 
interface.
I am only suggesting that if the formats were xml based, then those parts 
that a
Certain party does not wish to deal with can more easily be filtered out 
with much
Less technological struggle.

>
> Have you considered using a private mailing list? Email can contain all 
> that
> you are wanting, its just the distrubution you desire that is not yet 
> clear
> with me.

I use all of those technologies in different ways. But this is not an answer
To what I am proposing.  Email and mailing lists are yet another transport
Mechanism.

>
> Cheers...............pk.
>
>
> --- Maximus/2 3.01
>  * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)

Thanks for your responses...

Michael Cassidy
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Logical Art Studio - bbs.logartsol.com (1:209/269)