I agree in general but that isn't what WAIB should be about. That is an ideal remit for wavelook to pick up. Make their client work with WAIB.
Like i said it about familiarity, with those sort of users. WAIB has enough priorities as it is. The main one begin to show that wave works as a technology, and it is easy to implement. Without that different client functionality is moot. ----- Original Message ---- From: Sean Wendt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 22 February, 2011 22:27:30 Subject: Re: Question about Wave-Dev I think the Outlook extension is a very good example; now if we could build a wave client that merges an email inbox with a wave inbox then that would already be satisfactory. For sending an additional set of controls for setting (recipient, cc, bcc, sender, title and attachments to send) replacing the wave controls on would do the trick. Users could convert convert emails into waves and back by stripping incompatible elements, copying-and-pasting between emails and waves as they see fit within a single client. Thunderbird's "Content Tabs" are nice, but still require the user to conform to a different set of interface conventions for the wave client. Would extending, say, Roundcube be more difficult than writing an standalone wave client for the web? Which would be the most difficult tasks for building a unified inbox and exchangeable controls? I am actually wondering why Google didn't do this with Gmail; they also popped Buzz into everyone's mail controls one idle Thursday afternoon. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 13:23, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote: > I actually agree with you almost on every point, however, you just can't > fight the potential customers/adopters - and they want email-wave > integration. It wouldn't be a big problem if not the fundamental > incompatibility. It is easy to convert email into wave, but it is > impossible > to convert wave content into HTML without losing information. And it is > tricky to incorporate email response back into wave. > So as see it, there are only 2 practical solutions: > 1) To stretch a bit email capabilities and to cut off wave. You get a well > integrated solution which is more than email, but a lot less than Wave. > 2) Leave Wave as is, cut of email - make it just a pluggable wave > extension. > It wouldn't allow full email capabilities but would provide just enough to > be able to send/receive emails with not really convenient user interface. > It > would require to relay on Wave for features like calendar, contacts etc.. > and it wouldn't be as user friendly as integrated email solution. > I guess that both options will find their uses and users. But, imho, it > should be clear, that solutions of the first kind , most probably will be > provided by 3-rd parties and not by the WIAB community. > 2011/2/22 Paul Thomas <[email protected]> > > > Personally I think SMTP is the wrong protocol for Wave. I know that Chris > > argues > > that it is essential for enterprise, I actually disagree.The wave/email > > analogy > > was always a false one. Currently there is no mature wave services. I > know > > that > > frustrates some people, but frankly it has little to do with lack of > email > > integration. Once it is stable there will be little reason to make it > > analogous > > to email. > > > > > > > > There is a big difference between integrating wave technology in any > client > > be > > it email or whatever and merging the two technologies, which I think will > > be a > > red headed step child.It is kind of like trying to make phone and email > > analogous, sure there are ways of bridging the gap but they are clearly > not > > the > > same. You can help streamline forms of communication, like facebook is > > doing. > > That gives you a step gap. > > > > > > If wave itself isn't useful to enterprise, no attempts at making it like > > email > > is going to make it more useful than email. The primary aim of WAIB is to > > be > > easy to set up and useful. > > > > > > > > Google was slow to open up Wave to open up wave to the open source > > community. > > Some people were pissed off by that more than others, and people got > > different > > ideas. It is actually quite a tough nut to crack. You can't rush the > early > > stages. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Chris Harvey <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tue, 22 February, 2011 9:12:35 > > Subject: Re: Question about Wave-Dev > > > > | Does a more elaborated attempt for email integration with wave exist? > > > > Yes. The iotaWave project is predicated on the notion that wave and eMail > > *must* be tightly integrated for wave to make a significant impact on the > > enterprise market. > > > > -- > > Chris > > the wave practice <http://thewavepractice.com> > > iotawave.org > > Singapore > > > > > > > > > > >
