[Logarion] Forming topics in headers

orbifx fox at orbitalfox.eu
Sun Jan 27 09:27:27 GMT 2019

Will using very broad categories (computing, life, etc) for [topics] help aggregating texts? Or is it too coarse?

Maybe something like Usenet [hierarchies] would be a better system. I think that it was meant to be for grouping people, but they must have realised the best way to do that on a very global system was to map those groups onto topics.
Whether intentional or not, hierarchies also create a context giving a topic better definition. 

If Logarion supported topics of the form: `computer.language.ocaml`, someone could subscribe to all texts `computer.*`, but others could focus on OCaml. It could also avoid some collisions such as `computer.protocol.gopher` and `biology.animals.gopher` :)

The cost of this is complexity, which could be mitigated by the client's user interface.

Any thoughts? Any alternative topic systems?

[hierarchies]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup#Hierarchies
[topics]: https://logarion.orbitalfox.eu/header-fields.html#topics

More information about the Logarion mailing list