|
Listened to the new Gillmor Daily I'm with Steve, not buying Mike Arrington's claim that any community was injured by the silly Irish Web 2.0 conference cease & desist molehill. That's quite a string of adjectives. Let's group them. The Irish aren't silly. The molehill was sillily made into a mountain. The conference was was to be called Web 2.0 and it will be held in Ireland. The cease & desist letter was about the conference name, which still will be Web 2.0, which killed the cat that ate the rat that lived in the house that nobody built. Arrington wanted Steve to stipulate there has been a lot of innovation from around the time Flickr came on the scene, no matter what the flurry is called. Could be, but I'm not sure. He and others see the web through a startup and venture capital lens, and I wonder if the activity is more about money people getting interested and feeling safe again, and less about any increase in innovation. Taking a break from packing This is taxing work. Got some good advice tonight: keep things that are useful or beautiful. I think I'd add small. It's hard to cast off my packrattish tendencies when I get reinforcement for being that way. Like, just now I had to patch a wall and guess what? I already had spackling compound and a putty knife. See? I think you're right, Tom Holy grail is what you call inclusion in your comment on Rubel's blog. When I first learned about that property of OPML it made my heart stop just thinking about the possibilities. I think it makes sense to let that one lie dormant until people are ready for it. OPML is a little hard to put across, as I've discovered in trying to sketch out the 1.0 site. Its multi-faceted nature makes it even harder in a way. Casual users don't think formats; they think applications -- and how in hell could a subscription list transport be under the same umbrella as a distributed directory or a team-authored textbook? Team-authored textbook? What team-authored textbook? I just thought of it when I was writing the post about inclusion. In lots of academic texts, chapters are contributed by different authors. If each chapter was an included node in an outline, revisions could be continuous. Shoot, a chapter author could further delegate certain sections to research assistants. If delivered as a PDF, the publisher would have to generate and distribute the update. But somebody (Microsoft if they were crafty) could give Adobe a run for their money by creating something like Acrobat that updates read-in XML files from the reader. Talk about disintermediation! Why not? What happened Whatever happened to Xdocs anyway? Did it get lost in the move to Live? Or did MS decide to concentrate on the forms aspect? |
 |
