"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:4008A67A.C2FFEF8C@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> >

> > news:5pp### [at] tritonimagicode...
> >
> > > I think a common group for all 3rd party tools would be a good idea
> > > (povray.tools or povray.utilities).   This way it would be easier to
> > > adapt to tools becoming more popular and others less.
> >
> > povray.tools + the prefix gets my vote.
> >
> > There's a lot of intersection between these tools (Poser + Poseray for
> > instance) so keeping them all at the same place is a good idea.
>
> From a consistent hierarchy point of view I would think that
povray.text.utilities
> would be a better fit. I have often thought it inconsistent that we had
the
> povray.utilities.binaries group without the .text group for related
discussions.
>
traditionally, that would be

povray.binaries.utilities.d
or
povray.binaries.utilities.discuss

not povrray.text  as the 'text' refers to the type of content posted
further clarified by the last name section (i.e., scene-files)

text content in re third party utilities (reviews, manual explications,
howtos)
would probably belong in
povray.text.utilities.reviews
povray.text.utilities.howtos
although there is some sense of redundancy here

the second level name section has always been meant to be used so
that readers could quickly determine whether the group could comprise
binaries or not
(absent 'binaries' the assumption is that content would be
 textual (( ! html) ) )


see usent history, etc.

except for binaries  groups (which relates to transit and storage
issues) the general content rule has always turned out to be that user
custom and usage rules except when the server owner decides otherwise

Pan

Post a reply to this message