Seth Spitzer wrote:
>
> > They are alphabetical, but not from the lowest level back to the
> > highest. Using the example I mentioned, this is what I see in NS6:
> > n.comp
> > n.p.general
> > n.p.m.mail-news
> > n.r.c.general
> > n.r.h-b.general
> > n.wanted
>
> That is alphabetical, from lowest to highest.
Sorted by *abbreviation*? Yuck - remember that the full names of these
groups are:
nz.comp
netscape.public.general
netscape.public.mozilla.mail-news
nz.reg.christchurch.general
nz.reg.hawkes-bay.general
nz.wanted
So it's quite reasonable for the original poster to expect (at least)
n.comp to appear *after* n.p.m.*, even though you can't distinguish the
two "n.*"s in the UI.
On the other hand,
> > Whereas I would expect them to keep to the hierarchy structure of the
> > newsgroups like this:
> > n.p.general
> > n.p.m.mail-news
> > n.comp
> > n.wanted
> > n.r.c.general
> > n.r.h-b.general
>
> I don't see how that is sorted. But all this would be solved if you
> could order newsgroups like you could in 4.x.
This order is more complicated and I wouldn't necessarily expect the UI
to do this. It appears that the poster expects that given *both* A.b and
A.c.D (lowercase letters indicate a part that doesn't include any dots,
uppercase letters indicate something that might or might not include a
dot) (that is, any two groups with a common prefix A, one of which has
exactly one word after A and the other of which has more than one word
after A), A.b would always sort first even if A.c.D is alphabetically
earlier.
Whether this is a good sort order or not is dubious.
Stuart.
