 | | Re: How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
| (...) I must chime in here... 'though it cert'nly isn't going to be at the top of his priorities now, I suppose. (uh-oh... Jeremy, you're steeling my a's 'gain, huh? ;-) <snip> That would be great... whoa. That would be just *fabulous*. I can't wait (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: How about a my.netscape-style RDF for portals?
|
| (...) (even though I know Todd is a particularly busy person, and has many other probably more important hot-item issues to work on...) Me too! I'm getting more and more excited about the potential for a portalized LUGNET, since we're starting work (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
| (...) True - but that would take a lot of combined effort. The question is, do we need a temporary solution *until* there's a permanent, searchable db? (...) Uh, probably he has other things on his mind right now, see (URL) (...) Yeah - they don't (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
| (...) You didn't mention FUT, so I'm ignoring this bit. (...) I'd rather not see db.inv's charter changed. I think a new group would be better. Actually, the true, proper solution is a queryable database. Maybe that's why Todd Lehman is staying out (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Which sets had these slopes in them?
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote: (about the various groups under discussion) (...) The thing is, all the groups (.cad.dat.parts, .db.brictionary, .db.inv, and .db.scans) are very clear-cut in their purposes, and none of them are in (...) (26 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
