Benjamin Carlyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]If you wanted your post to be associated with those tags, why didn't you structure your site's categorisation in the same way? I suspect that if the information isn't useful to users browsing your pages then it isn't really something that should be visible to them, and perhaps should not exist at all.
One practical reason I structured our site with categories and tags is to cater for folks searching for information with different depths in vocabulary. E.g. some folks will be interested in the category 'code' generally but not be specifically looking for information on a specific tag that might be used in a post like, 'php'. The category name appears on the site and in the URI. The tag is linked via Technorati to other posts tagged with that subject. So the seperation of categories and tags allows wide broadcasting of the content and narrow broadcasting at the same time which may give better access to folks with different interest / knowledge levels in the audience. It's by no means perfect, but it does allow someone interested in reading generally about, 'code' to also see specific articles that also relate to (for example) Microformats. Also vice versa. It could been seen as an attempt at a very simple controlled vocabulary with the tags as sub-categories but it's rather an attempt at widening the viewport.
Jon Tan www.gr0w.com _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
