On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 02:42:49PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote: > > protocol::jabber > > 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.
In the old tradition of me disagreeing with you ( ;) ), I'd support moving them under im. The rationale is that it's what people use them for, and that if we want to add protocols for videoconferencing we can always file those protocols ALSO there. It may happen (and it usually happens) that a software supports ICQ for instant messaging but not for videoconferencing, so it would make sense to tag it protocol::im:icq but not protocol::videoconf::icq. 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
