It looks like I was the only one that was especially concerned with WYSIWYG or gadgets. I think it is wise to focus on approaches that take advantage of as many of the Wave tools as possible. So you guys have a point about the emphasis on robots. Maybe another more general suggestion might be to consider the advantages users of the tool will have over other (non-wave-based) tools.
On Nov 19, 9:49 am, David Nesting <da...@fastolfe.net> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Jason Livesay <ithk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > in a Wave. I just wanted to mention again that I personally would put more > > effort into the gadget and WYSIWYG side of things than to the robot and > > markup side of things. I feel > > So, I don't mean to dissuade anyone from working on things designed like > this. I'm really interested to see how this approach turns out. > > The chief complaint I have with a gadget-oriented approach is that you start > abandoning the services already provided by Wave. You can no longer > leverage spelly, or linky, for instance. You have to re-implement your own > editor within the gadget. At that point, the only thing you're using Wave > for is (presumably) to store the resulting document. You might be able to > save yourself some work and just implement this as a stand-alone web app? > Are there other ways we can continue to leverage Wave but approach this in > a gadget-oriented manner? > > David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Wave API" group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=.
