Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:52:58AM > -0700: >> Neil Schneider wrote: > [snip] >>> I hate the designation of "folder" btw, the proper name is directory. Folder >>> is a Windows euphemism. There are no "folders" on my computers, all >>> my folders are over in the file cabinet, where they belong. >> <heh> I have the same reaction to "folder". > > Nah. It's a "drawer", of course. :) > > If we're using a metaphor of containment, we should use terms that > *contain* things. Directories -- in RL -- are not containers. > >> .. But, I think the /virtual folder/ part does have a conceptual >> strength in allowing your view of the information _organization_ to be >> customized. Actually, not too far removed from symlinks, eh? > > I use mbox, not maildir, so when I want to refer to a collections of > email, I will talk about "folders", not "directories". > > I suppose if I started using maildir, that might change. > >> For email, it strikes me that there is one unquestionably superior >> indexing method (by receipt timestamp). Sender and subject (etc) are >> great secondary indices, but I'd kinda like to be able to apply multiple >> and time-varying ad-hoc tags to email messages. > [snip] > > Superior for _what_? Timestamps suck. How do you find anything by timestamp? > Sure, the computer loves it, and it provides a nice sort order, but I've > rarely ever successfully found anything by _time_. >
Superior for my purposes :-) . Would it be better if I said time rather than timestamp? I didn't mean to emphasize any technical term. I just meant that however else I might sort and group and regroup things, I wish that I may always go look for things by date and strict sequence. I may be obsessed with a ledger mentality, but I really do think it's important -- and I do search for things from that viewpoint. Mail is in fact one place where I do that a lot. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
