From: Jeff D. <da...@da...> - 2002-10-16 17:00:07
|
> By "closed" and "open" I ment to distingish > between the "GroupGroups page" or "search for /^Group/" methods. Aha! I would vote strongly against supporting both. We already have a bad enough case of "creeping featuritis". Pick one a go with it. Having thought about the issue a bit more while sleeping last night, I like the CategoryGroups idea even more... It's fairly "wiki"ish and avoids introducing new paradigms while minimizing the introduction of new "magic" page names. (Note that since all current backends have a decent link table (if you ignore bugs in the link extraction code :-/), I don't think there is any performance hit involved in going this way.) Maybe even we don't need to impose the FooGroup: * MemberOne syntax? Perhaps saying that any user-pages linked to by a group page are members of the group is enough. Still absorbing the days first cup of coffee... Jeff |