[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sqwebmail
Subject:    Re: [sqwebmail] new file proposal
From:       Kurt Bigler <kkb () breathhost ! net>
Date:       2003-02-27 7:28:52
[Download RAW message or body]

on 2/26/03 11:17 PM, Jesse Guardiani <jesse@wingnet.net> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathhost.net>
> To: "Jesse Guardiani" <jesse@wingnet.net>; <sqwebmail@inter7.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [sqwebmail] new file proposal
> 
> 
>> on 2/26/03 7:45 PM, Jesse Guardiani <jesse@wingnet.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathhost.net>
>>> To: "Jesse Guardiani" <jesse@wingnet.net>; <sqwebmail@inter7.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [sqwebmail] new file proposal
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> on 2/26/03 7:40 AM, Jesse Guardiani <jesse@wingnet.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> Maybe that's a hokey way to implement it... but it made sense at the time,
>>> and
>>> I can't think of a real compelling reason to change
>>> it.
>> 
>> Well it sounds like you are agreeing with this catch, but that you aren't a
>> purist.  Correct me if I'm wrong, because that is my assumption for going
>> on.  I am a purist not for the sake of purity alone, but because it has
>> implications for the (server admin) user.  If you leave it the way it is...
>> 
>> It draws attention to a separate situation that is not really separate.  It
>> makes people think about what the separate thing means, when in fact they
>> didn't have to think about it at all.  It obscures the power of the original
>> wildcard notation - it will actually prevent the mind of the person
>> assimilating the doc from being able to grasp something because they will
>> have assimilated something not thought out - a contradiction.  If the reader
>> doesn't realize the contradiction consciously then their understanding of
>> the whole thing is reduced.  If they do realize it consciously it will make
>> them believe they are missing something else - there must be something else
>> - what does this documentation really mean?
>> 
>> In my mind this is worth fixing.  Are you sure that if you were to just
>> remove the option that the *:* method would just not already work in your
>> existing implementation?  I'm not sure it would, but it seems possible.
>> Then you can just tell people that the allvirtual option was unnecessary.
>> 
>> Sorry, I wish I had gotten this to you in time to prevent extra trouble.
>> But I do really think the quality of sqwebmail will be better if its
>> documentation isn't confusing the user with features that don't need to
>> exist.
> 
> To be honest, I try not to think about it that much. I think this whole file
> will be a bit hard for some people to understand, but others will get it just
> fine.
> 
> I'll just write the best docs I can, then answer my lot of the questions on
> the mailing list.

Well, then it will help people like me a lot if the documentation explains
that this option would be strictly unnecessary, and that *:* should have
done the same thing except that that case was not implemented.  Then none of
us will be scratching their heads, and everybody will know what they need to
do to get their work done.

Meanwhile since I'm the "purist" I would agree to change this implementation
and the doc later (or even now) if you are willing.  Same offer for my other
point, if it turns out to be valid.  Having gone this far without having to
do any work its only fair that I do some, especially under the
circumstances.

Thanks,
Kurt Bigler


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]