On 8/17/02 12:30 AM, "Russ Allbery" <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> If Google were actually responsive, it would be usable. It's probably the
> best available one.
You just don't like blondes. (more correctly, you're already looking forward
to when web services turn them into redheads...)
> But I think you've completely missed my point, as stated in my previous
> message. The ideal archives have the same interface as *the user's e-mail
> client* but with searching. And by "the user's e-mail client," I mean
> exactly that.
No, I didn't. I think that's a nice idea, actually. But I also don't believe
all users will want that. You may find it slow, but I actually see uses for
both interfaces. And a web service setup.
> look like Pine. Because that's the interface they already know how to use
> and are comfortable with.
But they're also comfortable with the browser interface, which you're not...
> Um, Chuq, just because you keep the archives in that format doesn't mean
> that's the format you *use*.
Point taken, although to be honest, these days, I'd prefer to stuff them in
a database, but in an unprocessed form, just to reduce the hassles of
managing the glop 'o stuff. Right now, my general idea is to stick the
header in one column as text, the body in another, and then add other
columns as needed to make using those pieces. But not to chop it up and
mince it into hash. So you could regenerate the plain text at any time from
the database...
I'm definitely not in the "whac the archives and hope your needs don't
change later" camp.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties
are largely ceremonial.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
