Oh, ghod; here we go again.

May 8, 2000 8:21 PM

Oh, ghod; here we go again. This is, so far, actually sounding promising: "News from the cross-platform deleting community". Whomever's running it, don't blow your cover. Just add a link to me; 'k? ;-)
posted by baylink (11 comments total)

>> Array and Latte, two of the EditThisPage sites quoted below, have been deleted by their publishers. <<

I don't know about Latte, but Dave didn't delete Array. The owner of the site took it down for whatever reason (I don't think he's made his reasons public yet, but I could be wrong.)

And if you check out Latte, you can see that he's already apologizing to Dave for a miscommunication.

Nothing more to see here, I'm afraid. Move along, move along.



posted by Calebos at 8:30 PM on May 8, 2000

too many damn posts on metafilter about Winer... people are really passionate about this guy!
posted by chaz at 9:55 PM on May 8, 2000

aside from being rude and boring, this constant, obsessive harping on one man's every move is such a waste of bandwidth. don't people have anything better to work on or think about? it's as if the man is surrounded by bitter, rejected lovers, who can't move on with their lives.

here are some things to think about: is corporate america ruining the web? does independent content have a future? will netscape ever release its browser, and will microsoft ever fully support web standards?

but, you know, if you'd rather obsess about dave winer, go for it, i guess. as for me, i'm going to stop reading and responding to these threads.
posted by Zeldman at 11:50 PM on May 8, 2000

Um, Zeldman? This wasn't an 'obsess about Dave Winer' thread; this was a "good; someone is doing *good* satire again thread.

Please don't project.

:-)

posted by baylink at 6:32 AM on May 9, 2000

Calebos, he wasn't saying that Dave had deleted them, he said "by their publishers" which should possibly have been worded "by their respective publishers" or even owners.

I thought it was funny, but jeez, this intellectual thread is getting pret-ty frayed.
posted by dhartung at 8:11 AM on May 9, 2000

>> , he said "by their publishers" which should possibly have been worded "by their respective publishers" or even owners. <<

You're right. I assumed he was jumping on the "Dave is pulling content he doesn't agree with" bandwagon, which is pretty tired. I should have read it closer.
posted by Calebos at 8:36 AM on May 9, 2000

Thank you everyone. Zeldman probably means well, but it's much better to let this wind down of its own accord.

BTW, I posted a captulation message, and a summary statement on the threads that have been started. I truly feel we can all work better together as a result of this, something positive could happen here.

Links on today's Scripting News under "This was also hard work."

If we want to, we can draft a statement, another level above the hosting agreement, that defines when a host may choose to opt-out, and what that process is, and what chances there are for review and comment on the event. I don't want this to be vague, and I also don't want to be forced to support content that we don't support. There has to be a process by which we can get out of the "Winerlog" business, as an example, when that's what we want to do, without fearing retribution.

I think there are going to be a lot more hosting services in the future, at least that's we want to see at UserLand (that's why we license the server software) but without a strong foundation for hosting services, every ISP is going to go through what we just went through. The more agreement we have, the better.

For example, what is Blogger's policy? I admit, even though I have a Blogger site, I haven't read the hosting agreement. And Blogger isn't immune here, they do host our content, if you want to edit rendered HTML, give it a try, you'll quickly lose a taste for it. If you want the actual words back, to move to another service, what do you do?

BTW, the editor in MetaFilter is brutal. It's too damned small. How about working out an xml-rpc interface so I can use a decent writing tool for my posts here?

;->

Love, Dave
posted by davewiner at 10:09 AM on May 9, 2000

As Ev has stated elsewhere -- and is patently clear if you read, oh, perhaps Blogger's about page -- Blogger doesn't host your content, if by "host" you mean "serve to the web."

Blogger is a service that makes writing, formatting, and posting to a weblog easy (among other things). But that posting is to your own server (as the aforementioned about page states many times, even in italics!). So If you want to move to another service... move your server to another service! You have all of your pages -- every single byte of your content -- already, and no process is needed to get it from Blogger.
posted by delfuego at 2:39 PM on May 9, 2000

Gee, I love it when someone volunteers Haughey for one of their pet projects.
posted by harmful at 2:50 PM on May 9, 2000

davewiner avers: if you want to edit rendered HTML, give it a try, you'll quickly lose a taste for it. If you want the actual words back, to move to another service, what do you do?

I've edited text/HTML (and other sorts of markup) hybrid matter for long enough now that it's practically second nature. But it's fairly simple to strip out the tags, isn't it? Just render your weblog to your server, grab the pages, run 'em through BBedit or TextSoap and voila--plain text. Or am I missing something?
posted by bradlands at 3:15 PM on May 9, 2000

Nope, you're not.

Yes, stripping the *data* out of a rendering of databased blog entries is possible, but yes, it's also a pain in the ass...

I wonder if Blogger can do an XML dump of the database. I'm talking to Andrew at Pitas about some possible extensions; I'll have to suggest that one, too.

Oh, and thanks, whomever...
posted by baylink at 7:36 AM on May 10, 2000