Newsgroup

869683 Gillespie Brandon James ([email protected])
Tue, 18 Apr 1995 15:08:54 -0600


< Some people, Mark being one of them I believe, see the World Wide Web
< to be more than HTML. They see it as incorporating *all* networked
< protocols -- a conceptual superset, as it were.
<
< Now, I completely agree with that concept, however the implementation
< as regards newsgroups clearly doesn't. We don't have c.i.www.gopher,
< do we? Now, maybe this is a historical artifact, maybe not, but I
< think for consistency's sake (damn, there's that word again! and I
< even got some sleep last night!), it should be comp.infosystems.vrml.

You lost me on your logic. Up to the point about consistency's sake it
all made sense, but as has been pointed out uncountable times, VRML is
not an infosystem, but a mechanism with which an infosystem can be built
upon. Take the correlation with HTML, do you see comp.infosystems.html?
If you really want to, a correct group would be something along the lines
of comp.infosystems.www.3d, or comp.infosystems.www.vr, or something in
that vein (hell, even .vrml would be legit, but I'd prefer something else
like virtual, or imaging).

If you want a group to discuss *VRML*, it should be comp.lang.vrml. Just
like if you want a group to discuss html, it would be comp.lang.html (is
there a comp.markup? :)

It is completely logical, how is this so hard to see?

-Brandon Gillespie