On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:18:40 -0700 Matt Wilkie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking to "enforcement", I've never really grokked the utility of > keywords. [snip] > ...hmm, remembering the context of this question, not having to dive > into the details of every plugin source file in order to know who > wrote it (:maintainer:) and when was it last known to work > (:last_update:)... In this context keywords, or what I called trigger > words moments ago, make perfect sense. I take it back. :-) I wouldn't call specific fields like ':maintainer:' "keywords". I'd call them "specific fields" :-). To me the (marginal) advantage of keywords is in determining relevance. I hope this Leo oracle system we end up with has full text searching of the docstrings. Assuming it does, keywords aren't essential, but helpful in cases where the word you search is bound to show up in the body text of a lot of irrelevant docstrings. So if you search for 'plugin' resources with 'plugin' in their list of keywords will be ranked higher than resources with 'plugin' only occuring in the general text. And hopefully people only tag things like plugin managers, plugin documentation collators, and other specifically plugin relevant resources, with 'plugin'. Some things are just hard to search for. Like the other day when I was seaching for "google groups feeds", I meant feeds for google groups, not every irrelevant google group mentioning the word "feeds". If some pages had been tagged with "google groups" as a keyword, it might have helped. Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
