Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:87555 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64747 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2015 00:19:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2015 00:19:21 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 68.118.157.39 68-118-157-39.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com Received: from [68.118.157.39] ([68.118.157.39:5992] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C6/00-64118-683BEB55 for ; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 20:19:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:19:16 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <41.B2.09373.B881EB55@pb1.pair.com> <55BEA85E.9000301@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <55BEA85E.9000301@lsces.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 68.118.157.39 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Move internals discussion to a better medium From: me@stephencoakley.com (Stephen Coakley) On 08/02/2015 06:31 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 03/08/15 00:01, Markus Malkusch wrote: >> Anyways, OP was complaining about missing interfaces and features, which is >> simply not true. You can communicate through Email, NNTP and if one wants a >> webinterface so hardly just wrap one around NNTP. How can it be more >> accessible by reducing it to some webinterface only? No one said that it would be a web interface only (though that is most common). An email system could be supported. I hate sounding like a hipster youngin', but there's a reason why web interfaces have been replacing a lot of things over the years, though. It seems like pretty much everything computerized can access a web interface these days. > Some of the web based forums have attempted to integrate email with the > on-line interface. Yahoo groups is an utter pain but I don't have to use > any of the web based interface, I just use emails and in the morning > there will be a number sitting in inbox so I don't have to scan around a > dozen sites to see what is happening. That does seem like a reasonable advantage to supporting email. > The ones that do send email > notifications make a half hearted attempt, but one has to go on line to > see the content o post replies. What *IS* needed is a nice cross format > system of working, but that only requires adding a preferred web > interface to the existing email service? Perhaps then people who seem to > prefer top posting will use the web interface and those of us who prefer > a private local archive will then simply get the new text ... as an email. That sounds like a conflict of interest, but that's just me. > There are already web based interfaces but not providing what some > people seem to want. What is stopping the development of one of those > interfaces into an addition to the existing email channels? No need to > MOVE anything! > What is stopping development? NNTP is an ancient protocol. Nobody wants to bother writing *new* software for it. -- Stephen Coakley