[Debtags-devel] Debtags use case

[Enrico Zini]

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 <enrico at enricozini.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20051015/11a5de10/attachment.pgp