On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Emily Ravenwood wrote: > On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:06 AM, Kirrily Robert wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Azalais Aranxta <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Mark Smith wrote: > >> > >>> People use "foo: bar" right now because that's all they can do. > >>> Allowing them to continue doing that as-is would be fine, but > >>> codifying it seems like the wrong approach. > >> > >> Pardon me if this is an idiotic question, but what exactly is > >> wrong with "foo: bar"? > > > > *nodnod* to this. Any argument against "foo: bar" can be used against > > tags/folksonomies in general; likewise, the arguments *for* "foo: bar" > > are the same as those for tags themselves: easy to create on the fly, > > low management overhead, etc. > > I think Mark is 100% right, from a code and meta-data perspective. > The problem with "foo: bar" in the current system is that it does > *not* create a relationship between "foo" and "bar". It's a > completely separate tag of it's own, distinct from either "foo" or > "bar".
I understand this; what I think Kirrily and I and some others (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) are saying is that it should be possible to set things up so that typing "foo:bar" does create a relationship between foo and bar. I would like to be able to do that, without having to go and mouse around on the manage tags page to set up my hierarchies, because I'm a fast typist and I hate the mouse; due to RSIs I like to type as much as possible and reserve intensive mousing for Photoshop sessions, because I can only do it so long. > Not least because if you have "reviews" and "reviews: movies" and > "reviews: books" etc. and you want to change "reviews" to "critiques" > or whatever... you have to go through by hand and change every single > one of "reviews: $thing". Because they are all (all together now) > completely separate tags with no relation. Yes. It should be possible, shouldn't it, to set things up so that tagging a post foo:bar and then tagging another post foo:bling will create the hierarchy, and then, if you want to change foo:bar and foo:bling to frak:bar, frak:bling and frak:$thing, you could go to the manage tags page and do THAT there in one fell swoop, rather than having to do all your initial setup work there. Am I wrong to think it could workt that way? Of course this would mean not using a colon in tags for any other reason but since tags are meant to be short they will typically not have dependent clauses. Or we could not put spaces around the colon when using it to set up hierarchies, but I suspect new users might not get that one easily. > Incidentally, when we get the real deal running, I think it would be > a good thing to have a user option to either display hierarchical > relationships or display as a flat list, in actual entries. But > that's for the future. This is why I hate clouds. Also, on certain communities, clouds are just obnoxious because one particular tag is huge and others are nearly unreadable. Before I switched modest_style to list rather than cloud, the only readable tag was "member picture posts". **************************************************************** Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy) ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness "I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
