Re: We need to start talking about group and public annotations

Paul Everitt (
Wed, 20 Jul 1994 14:22:29 +0200

On Wed, 20 Jul 1994, Brian Utterback wrote:

> I am not sure how this would work.

[stuff deleted].

> everything before that sounds like the Web we Know and Love today. So, am I
> missing the boat on this discussion, or am I on the right track? Exactly
> how are group and public annotations being proposed to work? Do I have an
> obligation to accept annotations? Do I have to accept links or actually
> provide storage to annotations themselves? Perhaps there needs to be a

There was a discussion here a while back about "broadcast documents" (I
think that's the right term). Ones that need to replicate. I think it
was in reference to the scalability of WIT.

One group wanted to consider using NNTP as a means to update HTTP
servers. Now there is the concept in the proxy list I think of cache
managers. Confession, we are also a Lotus Notes shop. And I think it
provides an excellent example of many of the things needed to make HTTP
into a robust collaborative environment (signature/encryption, versioning
of documents, server-server replication).

So, to paraphrase: no, it won't be a single image forwarded around the
net. Perhaps the proxy cache manager could do it: you update its image,
and he propagates the *changes* up or around to other subscribing cache