Bill,
> I suggest that comment about "serious client-side
> installations to make this work" applies even more to INDP. If we are going
> to use your objective criteria, we should apply it consistently.
Thanks for pointing that out. Of course INDP will require serious
client-side support. However, it is thoroughly believed by one and
all (right?) that real-time notifications are highly desirable within
an intranet environment. Hence, the benefits ought to outweigh the
costs. In other words, most PWG folks believe there are indeed
compelling scenarios to justify real-time notifications, and hence,
INDP support on the client.
It's the fact that no such wide-reaching, compelling reasons exist outside
the firewall that make real-time notifications--and hence, machine-readable
code embedded in email messages--practical given the infrastructure costs.
Thanks for pointing out the differences.
...jay
"Wagner,William" wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> OK. In the interests of a reasonable discussion...
>
> I agree that no compelling reason for machine readable in the mail-to has
> been presented. I also note your comment that
> " I'll bet big money that the COSTS substantially outweigh
> the BENEFITS. Remember, you're talking some serious client-side
> installations to make this work as you describe".
>
> But then, aside from Novell's application and that fact that it is "cool"
> (which I think it is), I have not seen a compelling reason presented for
> machine readable information in any of the other notification delivery
> methods including INDP (or indeed, for INDP with human readable either) and
> I suggest that comment about "serious client-side
> installations to make this work" applies even more to INDP. If we are going
> to use your objective criteria, we should apply it consistently.
>
> William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
> Director of Technology
> Imaging Division
> NETsilicon, Inc.
> 781-398-4588
>
> ...jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 10:40:15 EDT