Text 766, 97 rader
Skriven 2007-03-26 20:23:26 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
    Kommentar till text 764 av Michael Cassidy (34.ftscpubl)
Ärende: Re: Fidonet, XML, Internet
==================================
Hi Michael,

 MC> I am back because I missed the fun I had when I was here.

An excellent reason......;-)


> 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.

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

I am not too sure what you mean here, as neither is DEPENDANT on the other, and
can operate independantly, so while there may be a relationship it can be
extremely tenuous (IMHO).


> 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.

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

I still feel there is some understanding missing, what you are suggesting would
require a re-write of all Fidonet S/W for all platforms to be able to handle
this. That is one heck of a lot of S/W and would constitute a rather large
project.

I dont know if you ever saw it but the concept of using XML for the Nodelist
came up for discussions about a year ago, but after a significant period of
discussion it never went anywhere, there were just too many "issues" to
resolve.


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

And this is why I think you will struggle, because while XML can do wonderful
things, it is not going to be able to help Fidonet much at all, even though it
can have a great impact on the BBS (the end user environment), which is not
Fidonet.


>  MC> This means we have got to find a
>  MC> way for BBS systems and
>  MC> message networks to "grow up" a little bit.


 MC> I only mentioned the BBS to show one example of how 
 MC> current work is happening to make it possible to bring
 MC> Fidonet to a wider more modern audience.

And this is the part that seems wrong to me. Fidonet is about TRANSPORT, not
presentation and NOT users. Fidonet can move XML messaging around EXACTLY as it
exists today, however to get your XML content into the Fidonet transport system
it has to be wrapped up as content suitable for the Fidonet transport
mechanism.

Can you not see that implementing XML within Fidonet itself would be a huge
struggle, that if you wish to really sell the idea, then you need to
demonstrate the end result first, but in a localised way. Far too many people
have big investments of their own time in Fidonet, to see it all change in
front of their eyes. This is why I say to choose an appropriate place to
demonstrate the capability, if you wish to grab support for this.


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

Exactly, XML is about content... or the the storage, processing and display of
data, all of which are not directly related to Fidonet, which is simply about
the transport of data.

Have you posted your thoughts in any of the development areas?

Cheers...........pk.



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