Bo Fussing wrote:
IMHO I think 'groups' or ways of contextualising notices is going to be
a key feature of OMB and perhaps even Twitter one day.
Indeed.
Just judging by
the discussions going on around Twitter there is widespread interest and
many different opinions how this can be achieved.
For example take a look at the Twitter Fan Wiki on this subject:
http://twitter.pbwiki.com/Groups
Interesting. We already have "Friend Sets" using the @# syntax. I don't
like using # as the group-message prefix, since we already use it for
hashtags, and we would have to once again guess.
or this blog posting and comments:
http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/groups-for-twitter-or-a-proposal-for-twitter-tag-channels/
I feel like we're hitting a sweetspot here.
WRT to Evan's list, I agree on all points except:
3) 'Group' names should be in a different name-space from
'User' (listenee) names - the two serve different functions
I don't understand the nature of your disagreement. Please elaborate.
9) How about using 'g <groupname> <message>' building on the syntax of
direct messages? The downside would be that direct messages sent to a
group would be 'd g <groupname> <message>' which is a bit messy.
Well, as for right now, groups won't handle direct messages.
I still prefer !groupname. I think getting too clever with @ as a prefix
might backfire on us.
-Evan
_______________________________________________
Laconica-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
