IM is "anti-web" too, and its doing fine. While the Google Wave client may be too much, the open wave protocol represents an improvement over http and im protocols in use today. I'm sure that it will find its niche(s), and perhaps become mainstream when it finds its killer app (which may or may not be from the big G).
I'm not arguing - I'm just curious, but what makes you say that IM is "anti-web"? Because it's private? Or because the current maintstream protocols have adopted too many features?
Email is not indexable (I mean by search engines) and not linkable, and therefore one cannot usefully add to the amount or quality of information on the web by email. It doesn't matter how relevant your email would be to someone else; if they're not on the TO: list, they're not going to get the data. Even if you put a URL in an email, there's no way for the web to represent the relevance of the email to the linked page. Also, you can't link from one email to another.
I'm not saying email is bad, it's just not part of the web.
Well, it does have a reply-to header that's used to construct the tree of the conversation. Other than that public mailing-lists are exposed on the web.
one cannot usefully add to the amount or quality of information on the web by email
Email is good for private conversations. And for public conversations, whenever I search something on Google I often find answers from mailing-lists, exposed through a web interface.
That's pretty much as part of the web as it can be.
The very fact that email needs to be pumped through a web server before it enters that workflow somewhat proves the point. Email is not linkable or indexable before you turn it into a web page. Therefore, it is not a web technology.
Email may not be a "web technology", but integrating it with the web is easy, because it is still just text based with an open and simple protocol.
You'll have a much tougher time integrating Skype's audio conversations with the web for example ... it's not an open protocol, and it is not text-based. Flash was also a problem for a long time, even though Flash interfaces are served from HTTP servers. Adobe may have released tools to extract metadata from Flash movies, but it remains to be seen if those tools can be used effectively.
These are better examples of what it means to be truly web-incompatible. Email is not because it can be served through the web, and it's also a painless process.
I like mailing lists more than I like forums. With the tools available I can easily filter messages ... block people I don't like and tag messages related to a certain subject of interest. An online forum can support these features, but it usually does not.
That's the problem with online interfaces ... if the web interface doesn't provide an API to plug-in external tools then you cannot adapt it to your needs. And that's also why (IMHO) older protocols, like Email and IRC are still around and popular.
I think his point is it's "anti-web" but who cares? The internet is not just about the web. Saying something is "anti-web" is not necessarily an argument against it by itself.
