Member Pages .... Re: [thesite] user selecteble stylesheets..

[rudy]

>> quod erat demonstrandum
>
>And the kiddie version: quite enough done

actually "which was the thing to be proved"

> OK. Still got NFI re the distinction between user and member.

try this: a member is a person whom we know, a user is just a userid or
email id and could be anybody

> Or why we require that distinction.
> Should we assume it's a placeholder for now?

it has been and will be a placeholder only until we start using it  ;o)

> I'd definitely prefer the ability to group attributes (also assists
greatly
> with presentation - see NEO for an example) and alter privacy per group.

can't disagree with that, but dude, how you gonna group them?  who gets to
say?  what if my groups are different than yours?  do we want standard
predefined groups?

> What's going to be easier for users?

heck, the more germane question is, what's easier for the coders?

remember the trouble i had explaining category types?  never mind that,
just look at the trouble i had last couple weeks explaining generic member
attributes -- you want to add another hierarchical level in there?  who's
gonna code THAT?  you have to think in terms of the form fields and how
they get translated into INSERT statements...  and remember that they'll be
using FKs to link the membattr records to groups to atribute records...

> Or do we want authors contributing articles under their work name,
> and then home alias or something?

now you're on the right track...

work ids change over time, too


and while i don't understand cookies and tickets and rss feeds (yet), i
have a sneaky suspicion that the separation of userid (remember, it's for
login/email purposes only) and member (identification of the individual)
will be a Good Thing across the various *.e.o sites....

rudy