Hi Evan, On point 3) all I meant was that of the options proposed; users and groups in the same name-space or users and groups in different name-spaces, the later was my preference. Separating the two gives a much cleaner one to many relationship.
OMB 0.2 is looking good. Regards, Bo On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 07:26 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > 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
