Subject:
|
Re: Proper place to post US S@H Phone Specials
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:30:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1314 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:32:50 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > What are the arguments again -for- having shopping stuff inside the .market
> > > hierarchy?
> >
> > Convenience, convenience, convenience. Not that it should be overrated.
> >
> > Oh, yeah. It builds a deeper ng-tree, rather than a wider one.
>
> Deep vs. wide -- do you mean deeper is better than wider? (Is the "Oh,
> yeah" a point or a counter-point?)
Sometimes. Did someone say "golden mean"?
"Oh, yeah" = "I just remembered what I was thinking of when I wrote
about it originally."
> p.s. I assume that by "wide tree" you mean wide in the classic CS sense --
> which actually turns out to mean "tall" in the user-oriented sense. "Deep"
> and "depth" in the classic CS sense map to "wide" and "length" (ng name
> length) in the user sense. (Oh jeez, this is confuzzing... :)
Yes. To all of that.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Proper place to post US S@H Phone Specials
|
| (...) Deep vs. wide -- do you mean deeper is better than wider? (Is the "Oh, yeah" a point or a counter-point?) I don't have any inherent dislike for deep ng trees as long as the ng names remain: (a) type-able, (b) remember-able, (c) readable, and (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
