On 22. Feb 2007, at 18:03, Benoit Gagnon wrote:
Functionality : this doesn't feel right... What does Text, Source and Image Browser have in common ?
They add functionality to TextMate ;) Here functionality is not language specific.
I think "Utilities" or "Tools" would better fit.
I don’t really like Functionality, but Utilities or Tools are IMO not proper either, as for example the Math bundle is neither a Tool or Utility, but it does add some math-functionality.
Maybe the Functionality group should be split into what are “tools”, though is something like support for the S5 slide show format a tool (it does allow you to both create, edit, and display the slide show)? Most other things are likewise in a gray area when it comes to what they actually are, category-wise.
Plain text, imo, should not be there. Actually, if the bundle itself has no syntax and is mostly (if not entirely) composed of text commands, perhaps it should be renamed to "Text utilities" ?
I may remove Source, Text, and TextMate from the categories and make these bundles mandatory.
Do Bundles necessarily need to be named according to the type of document they serve rather than the functionality they provide ?
Nope, though mostly makes things easier :)
Apache, Lighttp, SSH-Config: How about grouping those in a "System configuration" category ? I would expect all "conf" bundles to be under the same category. Not sure Apache and Lighttpd are that closely related to the "Web developer" category just because they serve HTTP requests.
The thing with Apache is that it also has commands for restarting the httpd demon, etc. So not “just” for editing a config file, but providing support for Apache -- that could mean it should go into Application support, but I doubt people would expect it there, and Lighttpd only does the syntax highlight, so is not really app-support…
I do think Apache is related to “Web development” though.
Otherwise it could be difficult to find places fo other the config files in the future. Say for example, a crontab or sendmail bundle.
True…
I share your view on the Application support / Mac specific overlap. I'd drop the second one and put everything in Application support.
Though there is a lot of Mac-specific stuff which is not Application support, like Rez-file support, Installer-files, MacPorts-files, etc.
ActionScript: Should etiher be under "Client side" or in Application support/Scripting Language as it's closely related to Flash and not a web-specific language.
Yeah, I’d probably prefer the latter then.
Your comment on Writer/Documentation vs Programming/Documentation is right; it should definitely be the latter.
I moved it. _______________________________________________ textmate-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
