Erich Schubert wrote: >> To me this has always seemed a bit poorly-organised. Couldn't we >> have a general protocol::im tag, with sub-tags for ::im:aol, >> ::im:icq etc? > > You could debate that jabber isn't a mere IM protocol, and in fact > both MSN and Yahoo do IIRC support video conferencing and such kind of > stuff. > So filing them below IM isn't accurate IMHO.
The question is, are users going to want to do searches that treat them as a natural group? I think they are. And I think the label we apply to the group has to focus on their messaging functions. That label may be a little out of date, but it's certainly no worse than talking about "floppy disks"! It's just a suggestion, though - the one leftover I didn't bother mentioning even when I went through my gripes list a month ago. -- JBR Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing) _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
