| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> [...]
> I'm gonna give this a whirl on the webpages -- so nobody freak out just
> yet; this is just going to be a test to get a better feel for whether
> it's better or worse than the other options. It won't mean creating
> any ng's just yet, and the test is completely reversible.
Welp, it feels nice to move around in, but it SURE feels disjointed from the
rest of the CAD stuff, which makes it no fun at all in the final analysis.
Cross-linkages could repair some of that, but that's just a band-aid, and it
would just create confusion, even with a Yahoo!-style "@" character to
indicate a cross-ref.
So maybe it's time to come full-circle and put all of it back inside the
.cad.dat.* sub-hierarchy. :-p
I think the only way that a lugnet.ldraw.* sub-hierarchy would work is if
the lugnet.cad.* hierarchy were totally blown away -- and a change that
drastic would be pretty insane.
{Grumble, grumble, grubmle}
Awright. If these things were placed inside the lugnet.cad.dat.* hierarchy,
it'd probably all look like this:
Newsgroup name Webpage label
============================ =========================================
lugnet.cad CAD
lugnet.cad.dat.ideas CAD / DAT Files / Ideas
lugnet.cad.dat.models CAD / DAT Files / Models
lugnet.cad.dat.models.sets CAD / DAT Files / Models / Sets
lugnet.cad.dat.parts CAD / DAT Files / Parts
lugnet.cad.dat.parts.prim CAD / DAT Files / Parts / Primitives
lugnet.cad.dat.scenes CAD / DAT Files / Scenes
lugnet.cad.dev CAD / Development
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw CAD / Development / ... / ldraw.org
lugnet.cad.ray [R] CAD / Ray-Tracing
And we'd shut down lugnet.cad.dat. In this scheme of things, these would
also be non-discussion groups (DAT files only) and stuff posted to these
groups would have to have follow-ups set (by default) like so:
Newsgroup Followup-To
============================ ==================
lugnet.cad.dat.ideas lugnet.cad
lugnet.cad.dat.models lugnet.cad
lugnet.cad.dat.models.sets lugnet.cad
lugnet.cad.dat.parts lugnet.cad.dev
lugnet.cad.dat.parts.prim lugnet.cad.dev
lugnet.cad.dat.scenes lugnet.cad
I'm not keen on separating the data from the discussions, but neither are
some other people keen on putting them together.
Open questions:
1. Is lugnet.cad.dat.* the best place to locate these new groups?
2. Should discussion be allowed or prevented in these groups? That is,
should follow-ups to postings be directed to a different group, namely
either lugnet.cad or lugnet.cad.dev? (See
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:1343
for reasons in support of allowing discussion in the groups.)
3. Are URLs like
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/models/sets/
tolerable and understandable? Or is it best if /ldraw/ appears in
there somewhere?
--Todd
p.s. I just realized while typing this that .scenes doesn't belong under
.models -- scenes *use* models, but they're not a subclass of models as sets
are. Scenes are an entirely different layer of modeling.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| Todd: (...) [...] I think this looks pretty good. It felt a bit wrong to leave out LDraw from the names, but since it isn't the only program handling DAT files this makes sense. (...) Assuming discussions and data are kept together. Would it be easy (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) I like the above groups and follow-ups quite well. You might consider adding lugnet.cad.dat.models.alt (followup-to lugnet.cad). (...) Unless you wanted a lugnet.cad-dat.* heirarchy. Either way works. (...) IMHO the main reason for dividing up (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) I'm inclined to say so, esp. since so much has been posted to this sub-tree already. (...) No, separate the discussions from these groups. It's extremely frustrating to find source when it's scattered amongst ten times more messages discussing (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) I just took a few steps toward implementing the structure above, and while "ld" doesn't look too bad in the ng names, it looks *terrible* when it appears in a URL in the Location/Address boxes of NN & MSIE. :-( Compare: (2 URLs) it's because (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
