From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Fri Nov 21 1997 - 17:42:05 CST
Brad Templeton <brad@clari.net> writes:
>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.)
One thing does not exclude another. Your idea has some merits,
but I believe that the present-day namespace will continue to
flourish for quite a few more years. It seems to me that your
idea should supplement the present-day namespace, and gradually
take over, as it surely would gain popularity.
>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.
When I made a posting to swnet.internet.news about 8-bit chars in
newsgroup names, several people raised the concern about the diffi-
culties of having to type the name on a non-Swedish keyboard. Not
that I think that is a big issue, but apparently some people are
typing newsgroups names every once in a while.
Besides, your example makes me shiver, as it reminds me of Microsoft
Exchange. :-)
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se