On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Torsten Marek wrote:
> > I'd rename this only if all ICQ clients we have are also AIM clients,
> > and vice-versa.
> Well, the thing is that both ICQ and AIM use the same protocol (OSCAR) to
> connect to the servers.
[...]
> - From a strictly ontological view, the information about used protocol and im
> network belongs into different facets. Once the first GoogleTalk clients
> appear
[...]
> instant-messaging::aim (Implies: protocol::oscar)
> instant-messaging::icq (Actually Implies: protocol::oscar, which is the same
> as
> ICQv{7,8,9}. Only really old clients would be protocol::icq)
> instant-messaging::jabber (Implies: protocol::jaber, [protocol::xmpp])
> instant-messaging::jahoo (Implies: protocol::yahoo)
> instant-messaging::msn (Implies: protocl::msn)Right. So I'm definitely in favour of merging aol and icq in protocol, but only after we found a place to put these new instant-messaging tags, as currently the protocol facet is the only way of finding the right instant messaging clients one needs. > >>* Why isn't it protocol::pop3, but protocol::pop? > <quote> > The earlier versions of the POP protocol, POP (informally called POP1) and > POP2, > have been thoroughly made obsolete by POP3. In contemporary usage, the less > precise term POP almost always means POP3 in the context of email protocols. > </quote> Good! Let's rename it then. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
