Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins!will
From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: More discussion on fate of comp.graphics?
Message-ID: <271@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp>
Date: 14 May 91 01:27:51 GMT
References: <1991May9.140834.3564@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <4921@sahara.megatek.uucp>
Organization: Ryukoku Univ., Seta, Japan
Lines: 21

In article <4921@sahara.megatek.uucp>, fritzz@megatek.UUCP (Frieder Knauss) writes:
>comp.graphics?  I can think of:
>
>comp.graphics.file-formats     <--\
>comp.graphics.file-conversion  <---- not necessarily the same thing
>comp.graphics.ray-tracing
>comp.graphics.image-processing
>comp.graphics.pixutils
>comp.graphics.hardware
>comp.graphics.algorithms
>comp.graphics.misc (or comp.graphics -- catch-all group)
>comp.graphics.visualization (don't forget this one 8-)

	Agreed, a double no, no, no, no, no.  defenatly not.

	Keep it simple.  My work is complicated enough, without others making
	it more complicated.  3 groups that's it.

							Will.....

	My opinions have been expressed...........But usaually don't mean much