On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:28:59 -0400, GrdScarabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Karel Demeyer wrote: >> I saw you asked about my request for tags and you didn't quite >> understand what I wanted here. As more and more apps on the desktop >> (f-spot, beagle, deskbar, leéftag integration in gnome ...) and webbased >> applications (flickr, gmail ...) are using tags I'd like amsn to jump on >> this wagon. Tags are some kind of metadata a user can 'attach' to its >> contacts. Default we should attach the groups as tag to a contact and >> when ua user removes this tags from a contact, in fact the contact is >> removed from the group. Then we allow the user to add more tags and >> remove 'm again if he/she wants so and we don't use "groups" anymore in >> our GUI. Then we can have our user show contacts by tag or search >> contacts by tag etc etc ... without having 'm in all those groups. >> These tags are nothing protocol/server-wise and would be amsn-specific >> but after all we could use 'm for more then this I guess. >> >> Just a proposal, maybe it's 'too much' and we could just call the >> "groups" we have now "tags" and that's it. Maybe we could do more >> powerfull stuff with it. > > That's really interesting but a all tag management would be too far away > from the original client in my opinion. > > Maybe keeping the group management as it is right now ... but add a tag > layer over it (integrating or not the tag group) that can be used for > reasearch/filtering and stuff. I think that's a great idea :) > > GrdScarabe Well one thing you reminded me of is that, we shouldn't go too far away from the original client, if we drop groups, users will migrate to amsn and say "where the hell are my groups", all they can see are "tags", and won't know what they mean... or they will, but will still be confused... about having a tag management layer on top of the groups is a good idea, as long as we speak about the same thing, are you talking about having a tags.tcl instead of groups.tcl in the Data/ directory of my previous hierarchy ? just another way of abstracting the groups ? or do you actually mean something else ? anyways, abstract as much as possible (but not too much) is a good idea, so I guess having tags instead of groups would be good, the 'msn' connection manager will consider tags as being groups, and the jabber connection manager (for example) will consider tags as tags or groups or 'whatever' is used in that protocol. -- KaKaRoTo _______________________________________________ Amsn-devel mailing list Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
