🚀 go-pugleaf

> > The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased.  I agree
> > comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a
> > working title for the group. 
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup
> with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as
> needed.  Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way
> as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value).
> 
> There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting
> a lot of misdirected posts about video in general.  Besides, what
> about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video?  
> 
IMHO there is enough action in video-computing to merit its own user group
without the added freight from the whole hyper/multi media train.

There are a number of video environments now for PCs and workstations, and
ongoing developments in video consumer durables like frame-grabbers, WORM
video disc players, and high definition video imaging generally.  I'd be
inclined to include developments in video codecs for image transmission with
these topics.

It takes a degree of bloody mindedness to equate video.video with comp.video.
I don't think there's much likelihood of an overflow from rec.arts.tv (for
example) into this group.

I'm interested in`desktop.video', but I don't think it's useful to categorise
the technology by the location of the hardware in this instance.



D