On 7 Aug 2003, David Nedrow wrote:
> What is the goal for the default sheets provided with Dia? Is it to
> provide a limited number of very loose categories, or a larger set of
> finer grained categories?
> The current incarnatino (including CVS and release) has an unusual mix
> of both. For example, there is a very specific GRAFCET category which
> includes stuff related specifically to GRAFCET. On the other hand,
> there's "network" which includes not only network items (generic
> router and switch symbols), as well as a number of what I would
> consider "Computing" and "Telephony" devices (eg. 3.5 in diskette and
> mobile phone, resp.)
> WOuldn't it be better to come up with slightly more cohesive
> categorization for the sheets? I know there will obviously be some
> overlap, but I think the sheets could be more intuitive for users.
Yes, it would. In fact, what we need is to have a nested categorization
approach, but that's hard to implement. Right now we mostly put them
together by how we get them.
> What are people's thoughts on this? I'd be willing to come up with a
> proposed arrangement for the current objects and some recommended
> additions for objects we've created inhouse.
That'd probably be of use; Alan?
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| HĂ„rdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it." | Where are we going, and
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | what's with the handbasket?