From: Per Abrahamsen (abraham@dina.kvl.dk)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 02:50:35 CDT
Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> writes:
> But if, as many would contend, our newsgroup names are a relic of
> an early 1980s design and no longer the best solution, why spend a lot
> of effort improving what they can do, espcially if it means making much of
> the software out there have to update?
I don't think the current names are that bad. A relatively short
mnemonic and unique name is essential for discussions about and
references to the group. The unexpected success of the URL should
have taught us that.
A different system is needed for describing and locating the group.
My hope was that integration into the web would provide us that,
i.e. web pages about specific subjects would link to related
newsgroups, and discussion oriented sites would provide their own
organization of the groups, but while this has happened, it is still a
niche.
While I support any attempt to provide a description and location
system that might fare better than the above (or the description
file), it is really ortogonal to the issue of the short mnemonic and
unique name to be in a language the users of the group understand.