[Coco] Does anyone want a CoCoWeb?

[Dave Chesek]

I agree with approach 1.


The possibility to do something useful on stock equipment, only adding some modern connectivity, should be welcomed as a natural extension of what would have been done had the technology existed at the time, as Steve points out. Is the CoCoSDC worthwhile? Or DriveWire? Or the ability to connect to VGA or HDMI? No one needs a CoCo, or any of these things. So what! We have them and get enjoyment out of using them, and the camaraderie this hobby engenders. That's reason enough.


Thanks for listening,

Dave

> On April 20, 2018 at 11:29 AM Steve Stroh wrote:
> 
> 
>     I like Approach 1. It’s not much of a stretch to think that the CoCo would
>     have done this back in the day had the Internet been more accessible to
>     consumers back then. Historically the CoCo has its roots in being a
>     communications device, and there were BBS’ and terminal programs, so HTML
>     and the follow-ons are on a par with VideoText, etc.
> 
>     I view some Internet / TCP/IP interoperability with the CoCo using NitrOS-9
>     to be one of the things I’ll have the most fun with. I can easily imagine
>     one of the very small microcomputers such as the Raspberry Pi ZeroW being a
>     front end for the CoCo.
> 
>     On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 07:42 Allen Huffman wrote:
> 
>         > > Now that we can hook up WiFi internet to a CoCo for $6 in parts (or more
> >         if you buy it from me as an assembled product ;-), is there any interest in
> >         a CoCoWeb? It would be:
> >            1. CoCo-specific web pages, made using very simply HTML specifically
> > 
> >         targeting the CoCoWeb. (There would be no way to view anything modern.
> >         These would be pages specifically for CoCo use, with the ability to click
> >         to download files, etc.)
> > 
> >         #1 could render basic websites (like Wikipedia) that were small enough to
> >         fit into our available RAM, and supported pure HTML versions (where, if CSS
> >         is disabled, you get raw text). But, www.whywouldyouwanttodothat.com
> > 
> >         The ability to quickly browse CoCo pages and retrieve files and such would
> >         be nice. A skin could even be made for wordpress that would be compatible,
> >         and there are some very simple message boards that could be done with a
> >         simple skin.
> >            1. Web Proxy, using the same technique done on the WebTV boxes. For those
> > 
> >         who have forgot, the WebTV was a setop box that would view almost any
> >         webpage of the way (of the day, before flash, java, etc.) and would do so
> >         faster than a PC. It worked by having their servers actually go get the
> >         page and render it, then send compressed versions and downsized graphics to
> >         the WebTV.
> > 
> >         Using the #2 approach, almost anything could be viewed as a static page.
> >         No Java, no Javascript animations, no Flash, etc.
> > 
> >         Asking for a friend...
> > 
> >         — A
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >         --
> >         Coco mailing list
> >         Coco at maltedmedia.com mailto:Coco at maltedmedia.com
> >         https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> > 
> >     > --
>     Steve Stroh (personal / general): stevestroh at gmail.com mailto:stevestroh at gmail.com
> 
>     --
>     Coco mailing list
>     Coco at maltedmedia.com mailto:Coco at maltedmedia.com
>     https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>