ncarroll wrote:
>
> And in 30 years I would rather look back and say "We did it --
> and changed the world", than
>
> ... "We had the best system." (I coulda been a contenda....)
>
Couldn't agree more. Question is, what's the best strategy for
doing that?
> Can you guys come up with an architecture that accommodates
> older email via a workaround "module"? Something -- perhaps
> less than perfect -- which allows older email clients to
> plug in, but doesn't trash the basic architecture of OHS?
>
Dunno. Lee really seems to feel its not much of a problem.
I tend to be less sanguine, but I could be wrong. His vision
was based on working from version-controlled files that
would enable change-detection. That's possible, but everytime
I try to visualize such a system, I see a lot of problems.
Without version control, the issue of identifying what
part(s) of a reply are copied from a prior message is
problematic -- for example, I tend to reformat lines to get
good line breaks and fix typos in the original text! That
will screw the system up big time, I think.
The vision I have of the result looks like a half-baked thing
that will work well some of the time, but look weird a lot
of the time, too.
I'd like to be wrong about it all, but at the moment that's
asking me to set aside a lot of experience that's telling me
how things are going to go. I'll be having additional
conversations on the architecture in the future. We'll see...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:57:53 PDT