Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> E-mail, once
> it let the military/academia, was a completely new thing, there wasn't
> anything like it before (the closest thing was telegrams, which
> charged by the word, could take a few hours to reach their destination
> and couldn't have attachments).
>
>
Not ev
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 00:06, philippe wrote:
> That is seriously good news and demonstrates Wikimedia's leadership in
> the field yet again.
Great!
Wikipedia's pioneering extensive usage of Unicode was noticed by Unicode.
Wikipedia's consistent usage of IPA was noticed by Prof. Asher Laufer,
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> It's not free software. The blog post says they "intend to open source
> the code". That generally means the code quality is so bad that they'd
> be embarrassed to make it public, and would like to clean it up to the
> point where humans can u
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Tim Starling
> wrote:
> > Yeah, sure. Like the way Jabber killed proprietary protocols like MSN
> > and AIM, right? It's been 9 years since the first release now.
>
> This is a completely other path. As I sai
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I thought that's all it was was a web interface... IIRC the preview was run
> in Chrome and Firefox, wasn't it?
It seems so. And there was one native console client :) (I thought
that at least one of their clients is a native one, but, it seems t
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I'm not sure if it'll catch on, because Google seems to have added so much
> extraneous crap into the mix
>
Like replying in the middle of a message, not by quoting the original, but
by just editing the person's message to add your question in th
Hoi,
There was also Safari ... the message was "modern" browsers.. but this is
for the reference implementation Google will build. It was also demonstrated
that you can go as low as a command line tool for this..
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/5/30 Anthony
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Milos Ran
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Like replying in the middle of a message, not by quoting the original, but
> by just editing the person's message to add your question in the middle of
> it. How pissed would you be if someone did that on your User talk page?
> But yet it got appl
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> There was also Safari ... the message was "modern" browsers.. but this is
> for the reference implementation Google will build. It was also demonstrated
> that you can go as low as a command line tool for this..
Actually, not a command lin
Hoi,
When you paid attention, you would know that it were developers. You are
thinking along the lines of traditional e-mail and YES, you want to know who
did what. You do know that it was explained that they deal with this. When
you forget about the e-mail paradigm and start thinking in terms of t
2009/5/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> E-mail, once
>> it let the military/academia, was a completely new thing, there wasn't
>> anything like it before (the closest thing was telegrams, which
>> charged by the word, could take a few hours to reach their destination
>> and
2009/5/30 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if it'll catch on, because Google seems to have added so much
>> extraneous crap into the mix
>>
>
> Like replying in the middle of a message, not by quoting the original, but
> by just editing the person's mes
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > Like replying in the middle of a message, not by quoting the original,
> but
> > by just editing the person's message to add your question in the middle
> of
> > it. How pissed would you b
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I hated the way it didn't seem to
> indicate what message you were replying to. For the most part, the
> conversation had a linear structure, not a tree one. They would reply
> to the last message in the conversation and the reply would have
2009/5/30 Anthony :
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> I hated the way it didn't seem to
>> indicate what message you were replying to. For the most part, the
>> conversation had a linear structure, not a tree one. They would reply
>> to the last message in the conversatio
> It's a great app,
look at it the other way! finally someone implemented LiquidThreads!
Cheers,
Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/30 Anthony :
> > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> I hated the way it didn't seem to
> >> indicate what message you were replying to. For the most part, the
> >> conversation had a linear structure, not a
Hi all,
As promised on this list, the election committee has revisited the
election dates. The election pages have been updated to reflect new
dates for this election: July 28 through August 10. It is our hope
that this expanded voting time will serve to allay some of the
concerns raise
> Hi all,
>
> As promised on this list, the election committee has revisited the
> election dates. The election pages have been updated to reflect new
> dates for this election: July 28 through August 10. It is our hope
> that this expanded voting time will serve to allay some of the
> concerns
Thanks for this compromise :) Could you put in the notes for the next
time something about reconsidering the time table on an earlier moment
and discussing that with the community? :P (so we won't forget)
Best Lodewijk
2009/5/30 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As promised on this list, the
2009/5/30 Anthony :
> A: "What's your favorite color?"
> B: "I like red"
> C: "I like green"
> D: "Red and green? Are you nuts? Blue is the best color of all?"
> A: I agree with B, red is definitely the nicest color.
> C: But isn't the wavelength of green so much more asthetically pleasing?
>
> H
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>> It's not free software. The blog post says they "intend to open source
>> the code". That generally means the code quality is so bad that they'd
>> be embarrassed to make it public, and would like to clean it up to the
>
2009/5/30 Tim Starling :
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Tim Starling
>> wrote:
>>> It's not free software. The blog post says they "intend to open source
>>> the code". That generally means the code quality is so bad that they'd
>>> be embarrassed to make it public, and
Hoi,
The license has been published here...
http://www.waveprotocol.org/patent-license
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/5/30 Tim Starling
> Milos Rancic wrote:
> > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Tim Starling
> wrote:
> >> It's not free software. The blog post says they "intend to open source
> >> th
Hoi,
One of the things that I really appreciate is the decision by Google to
create a reference implementation and the way they expect contributions to
the protocol to be accompanied by working code implemented as a patch for
the reference implementation. The reference implementation will as a prod
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> 2009/5/30 Thomas Dalton :
>
> > I don't get it... this is just MSN Messenger on steroids. It's a great
> > idea and if it works it should be really useful, but it isn't
> > world-changing and certainly isn't going to restructure the internet
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
> That would be great, but wouldn't it also mean the death of Google and
> pretty much any company which relies on web advertising to make money? How
> do you make money off of P2P? Software and data license fees, I guess, but
> is Google really pr
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/5/29 Milos Rancic :
>> Probably, some of you already saw that Google made something for which
>> I think that it will be the new form of the mainstream Internet
>> perception. You may read Slashdot article [1], a good description at
>> th
Having just watched the talk/show/discussion/dancing, I agree
completely with Steve's comments on wikien-l:
On 29 May 2009, at 04:52, Steve Bennett wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%
> 2Fwave.google.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
>
> (See from about 31:00 onwar
2009/5/30 Judson Dunn :
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> 2009/5/30 Thomas Dalton :
>>
>> > I don't get it... this is just MSN Messenger on steroids. It's a great
>> > idea and if it works it should be really useful, but it isn't
>> > world-changing and certainly isn't g
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Peter Coombe
wrote:
> The best description I've seen so far was "FriendFeed... with benefits" :-)
>
Right, it's not entirely new, which is I think why some people are
saying it isn't a big deal. The problem is, it's only not new for
people like us. We obviously s
On May 30, 2009, at 9:22 AM, effe iets anders wrote:
> Could you put in the notes for the next
> time something about reconsidering the time table on an earlier moment
> and discussing that with the community? :P (so we won't forget)
Sure will. I've started a follow-up file, and I'm sure othe
Judson Dunn wrote:
> I can't sell my luddite co-workers on the idea of a blog, or a
> wiki, but this is more obviously approachable. For more normal
> web users, there are obviously a lot of advanced uses as well.
Google Wave combines many concepts, such as mail discussion
threads, Twitter-lik
2009/5/31 Lars Aronsson :
> The idea of showing diffs since the user last viewed the same
> wave, is very similar to Flagged revisions.
How is it in any way like Flagged revisions?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscri
How does Google Wave help the WMF achieve its goals?
Wikipedia has already become a dominant information source for the 1.5
billion people with Internet access thanks to Google.
We need to focus on getting Wikipedia to the 5.2 billion people who can't
access it.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM, C
Given currently existing technology, and technology that we can reasonably
assume to be available within the next decade, how can the WMF best achieve
its goal of giving every person free access to our current best summary of
all human knowledge?
Consider that Google Translate has the best machine
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Judson Dunn wrote:
>
>> I can't sell my luddite co-workers on the idea of a blog, or a
>> wiki, but this is more obviously approachable. For more normal
>> web users, there are obviously a lot of advanced uses as well.
>
> Google Wave combine
It does sound like an excellent idea, but it does appear to require us
teaming up with Google, a hardware vendor, a software vendor (the OS of
course), a distributor and various governments that may or may not wish
they people having access to 'forbidden' information.
Assembling a chain of prod
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> E-mail, once
>>> it let the military/academia, was a completely new thing, there wasn't
>>> anything like it before (the closest thing was telegrams, which
>>> charged by the word, could take a few ho
Hoi,
When you want to consider Wave in combination with Wikipedia, there are a
few "easy" answers to this. The first is that Wave is massively easier to
use. When you combine the existing Wave technology with MediaWiki, you will
improve usability for MediaWiki. When you bring MediaWiki content to W
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Brian wrote:
> Given currently existing technology, and technology that we can reasonably
> assume to be available within the next decade, how can the WMF best achieve
> its goal of giving every person free access to our current best summary of
> all human knowled
41 matches
Mail list logo
