comp.lang.perl.cgi?
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is no longer an
appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for web applications to
discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
Charlton Wilbur
GH> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for
GH> several months. As far as I can understand, it means that
GH> there is no longer an appropriate Usenet group for those who
GH> use Perl for web applications to discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
On the contrary; it means that there is an appropriate Usenet group,
which nobody happens to be using.
GH> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
The procedure for creating a new newsgroup is well-established and
well-known. Have fun!
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
>>>>>>"GH" == Gunnar Hjalmarsson <nor...@gunnar.cc> writes:
>
> GH> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for
> GH> several months. As far as I can understand, it means that
> GH> there is no longer an appropriate Usenet group for those who
> GH> use Perl for web applications to discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
>
> On the contrary; it means that there is an appropriate Usenet group,
> which nobody happens to be using.
No, the (moderated) group mentioned is out of order.
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Well, I didn't ask how to do it. I was simply hoping for a few informal
responses on whether it would be a good idea.
Sherm Pendley
> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for several
> months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is no longer
> an appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for web
> applications to discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Christian Winter
> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for several
> months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is no longer an
> appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for web applications to
> discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
>
> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
I'm not sure if that is really needed. I've counted 670 postings
with a subject of cgi in clp.misc for the last ten months, where
not every one of the threads was even really cgi related.
clp.misc is still readable, so I don't see an urgent need to split
some parts off into more specific groups. From experience in the
German hierarchy, where de.comp.lang.perl.cgi exists in parallel
with de.comp.lang.perl.misc, cgi related traffic is decreasing
anyway and specific mod_perl questions don't hit the usenet very
often (mostly just scoping issues that aren't exlusive to mod_perl).
That's just my personal opinion, of course, but I believe that
as long as the number of postings for a specialised group is
below some treshold the annoyance about misplaced questions tends
to outweigh the comfort of having separate "views".
Maybe something like comp.lang.perl.web+cgi+mod_perl would be
appropriate to bundle anything web related, but I can't imagine
a short and easy to understand name that lets newbies find their
way there.
-Chris
Petr Vileta
news:4611782b$0$20298$9b4e...@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
>
> appropriate to bundle anything web related, but I can't imagine
> a short and easy to understand name that lets newbies find their
> way there.
>
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your mail
from another non-spammer site please.)
Tad McClellan
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>>"GH" == Gunnar Hjalmarsson <nor...@gunnar.cc> writes:
>>
>> GH> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
>>
>> The procedure for creating a new newsgroup is well-established and
>> well-known. Have fun!
>
> Well, I didn't ask how to do it. I was simply hoping for a few informal
> responses on whether it would be a good idea.
I can provide one data point.
I would vote no.
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
ta...@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
kra...@visto.com
> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgihas been down for several
> months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is no longer an
> appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for web applications to
> discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
>
> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
I wouldn't mind having the newsgroup comp.lang.perl.gunnar... We could
send all the spam, offtopic, and stupid posts there...
Ian Wilson
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson <nor...@gunnar.cc> writes:
>
>
>> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for
>> several months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is
>> no longer an appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for
>> web applications to discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
>
>
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi
>
Which apparently is moderated by a robot owned by Thomas Boutell, said
robot appears to be asleep.
My ISP doesnt carry comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
>>>>>>>>"GH" == Gunnar Hjalmarsson <nor...@gunnar.cc> writes:
>>>
>>> GH> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
>
Would you mind to share your thinking on the subject, Tad? Do you
welcome those who use Perl for webb stuff to use clpmisc for other
matters than pure Perl programming ditto, or do you find it satisfying
that there is no appropriate Usenet group for them?
I'd better add that comp.lang.perl.www, as suggested by Petr, sounds to
me as a better idea.
Sisyphus
"Gunnar Hjalmarsson" <nor...@gunnar.cc> wrote in message
news:57eq3cF...@mid.individual.net...
.
.
> Would you mind to share your thinking on the subject, Tad?
Yes, I'm also interested to hear Tad's thinking on this.
For as long as I've been using perl, it has been the case that one sends
one's perl questions to comp.lang.perl.misc, and one's cgi questions go to
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi. It's a long time since I've subscribed
to the latter and I'm amazed to hear that it has been out of service for a
lengthy period of time.
For mine, the best solution would be to resurrect
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi. (I have no idea whether that's a
practical solution :-)
Cheers,
Rob
Michele Dondi
<nor...@gunnar.cc> wrote:
>Would you mind to share your thinking on the subject, Tad? Do you
>welcome those who use Perl for webb stuff to use clpmisc for other
>matters than pure Perl programming ditto, or do you find it satisfying
>that there is no appropriate Usenet group for them?
Don't know 'bout Tad, but personally I welcome to clpmisc anyone for
any ("misc") use of Perl, web stuff included. Since I don't know much
in that area, it gives me chances of learning something. I don't
welcome any question that has really *nothing* to do with Perl.
Simple, isn't it?
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
Randal L. Schwartz
Sisyphus> For mine, the best solution would be to resurrect
Sisyphus> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi. (I have no idea whether that's a
Sisyphus> practical solution :-)
I'm working on that right now. The group's been dead since oct 2006, and
something is broken in the chain from posting to the
self-moderated-bot-approval to injecting back into the news system. I'm in
touch with the bot operator and we'll have some solution shortly.
print "Just another Perl hacker,"; # and clpa moderator
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sherm Pendley
> Tad McClellan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"GH" == Gunnar Hjalmarsson <nor...@gunnar.cc> writes:
>>>>
>>>> GH> Maybe it's time to establish the group comp.lang.perl.cgi?
>>
>> I would vote no.
>
> Would you mind to share your thinking on the subject, Tad? Do you
> welcome those who use Perl for webb stuff to use clpmisc for other
> matters than pure Perl programming ditto, or do you find it satisfying
> that there is no appropriate Usenet group for them?
That's a false dichotomy; other possibilities exist.
Speaking for myself (not Tad), my objection to it is this: We've already
had c.i.w.a.cgi and www.authoring.cgi for some time now. The problem with
offtopic questions being posted here has nothing to do with there being no
appropriate forum - there is (or was) such fora, and finding them was no
more nor less difficult than finding this one.
Offtopic questions tend to be posted here because the poster is unable to
correctly partition the problem space. Creating a new group won't solve
that problem; it'll simply be ignored like the others were.
Sherm Pendley
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:52:24 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> <nor...@gunnar.cc> wrote:
>
>>Would you mind to share your thinking on the subject, Tad? Do you
>>welcome those who use Perl for webb stuff to use clpmisc for other
>>matters than pure Perl programming ditto, or do you find it satisfying
>>that there is no appropriate Usenet group for them?
>
> Don't know 'bout Tad, but personally I welcome to clpmisc anyone for
> any ("misc") use of Perl, web stuff included.
I think a lot of us feel the same way; I have no objections to questions
that are actually about Perl, regardless of what the code in question is
being used for.
> in that area, it gives me chances of learning something. I don't
> welcome any question that has really *nothing* to do with Perl.
Exactly so. The problem is quite a few questions get posted here that are
really HTML or HTTP questions, where the fact that a Perl script happens
to be involved simply isn't relevant to the question.
> Simple, isn't it?
To an experienced developer it is.
On the other hand, the volume of off-topic posts here suggests that parti-
tioning the problem space is a difficult concept for novices to master. I
can't imagine how creating a new group would change that.
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> the volume of off-topic posts here suggests that parti-
> tioning the problem space is a difficult concept for novices to master. I
> can't imagine how creating a new group would change that.
It wouldn't, but my idea with a group called clpwww was that its charter
would be more permissive, just like ciwac was.
Now, since ciwac is being fixed, there is no reason to keep discussing a
new comp.lang.perl group. That was good news, Randal!
xho...@gmail.com
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
> > Gunnar Hjalmarsson <nor...@gunnar.cc> writes:
> >
> >
> >> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for
> >> several months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is
> >> no longer an appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for
> >> web applications to discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
> >
> >
> > comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi
> >
>
> Which apparently is moderated by a robot owned by Thomas Boutell, said
> robot appears to be asleep.
I would support either changing moderators, or changing the group
to unmoderated, and would oppose just creating a new group in lieu of doing
either one of those.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<nor...@gunnar.cc> wrote:
> The group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi has been down for several
> months. As far as I can understand, it means that there is no longer an
> appropriate Usenet group for those who use Perl for web applications to
> discuss CGI and HTTP matters.
Wouldn't it be better to get a new moderator?
Tad McClellan
> Michele Dondi <bik....@tiscalinet.it> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:52:24 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
>> <nor...@gunnar.cc> wrote:
>>
>>>Would you mind to share your thinking on the subject, Tad? Do you
>>>welcome those who use Perl for webb stuff to use clpmisc for other
>>>matters than pure Perl programming ditto, or do you find it satisfying
>>>that there is no appropriate Usenet group for them?
>>
>> Don't know 'bout Tad, but personally I welcome to clpmisc anyone for
>> any ("misc") use of Perl, web stuff included.
>
> I think a lot of us feel the same way; I have no objections to questions
> that are actually about Perl, regardless of what the code in question is
> being used for.
>
>> in that area, it gives me chances of learning something. I don't
>> welcome any question that has really *nothing* to do with Perl.
>
> Exactly so. The problem is quite a few questions get posted here that are
> really HTML or HTTP questions, where the fact that a Perl script happens
> to be involved simply isn't relevant to the question.
>
>> Simple, isn't it?
>
> To an experienced developer it is.
>
> On the other hand, the volume of off-topic posts here suggests that parti-
> tioning the problem space is a difficult concept for novices to master. I
> can't imagine how creating a new group would change that.
This post, along with Sherm's other one, pretty much mirrors my
position on this subject.
Michele Dondi
<ta...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>>> Simple, isn't it?
>>
>> To an experienced developer it is.
>>
>> On the other hand, the volume of off-topic posts here suggests that parti-
>> tioning the problem space is a difficult concept for novices to master. I
>> can't imagine how creating a new group would change that.
Me neither: in fact I feel like specifying this, because that was my
position too. I realise that maybe this was not entirely clear.
>This post, along with Sherm's other one, pretty much mirrors my
>position on this subject.
FWIW count me too.