From: Erik van der Poel (erik@netscape.com)
Date: Fri Nov 21 1997 - 17:19:15 CST
I prefer something like you mentioned. See also the "pretty name" stuff in
the following:
ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-hernacki-nntplist-02.txt
Erik van der Poel
Netscape
Brad Templeton wrote:
> So should I take it from this debate that nobody else is in favour
> of just creating a second, higher level newsgroup namespace that is
> more flexible, can use extended character sets (as well as spaces,
> and long, natural language explanatory names) and can have its own
> hierarchies (where a group need not be in just one hierarchy any more
> than a file on a unix system has to.)
>
> If people are going to suggest making newsgroup names that will break
> old software, so that people have to write new code anyway, am I the
> only one who says, "let's do it right?"
>
> Nobody names anything users are going to work with and select by
> mouse/menu/substring search with cryptic, short, spaceless names any
> more. Even most filesystems have gone this way when users have
> menus or name completion and thus don't have to type the names.
>
> A group should not be called "news.software.b" it should be called
> "USENET: Format and Transport Issues" If you want to type it in on
> a keyboard, you should have a system that lets you type a pattern and/or
> get completion, so you type less than "news.software.b" but get a
> name everybody understands.
>
> Of course the original names would still stay in the headers, and could
> still be hand-typed by those who want to.
>
> But if nobody else likes this I'll shut up.