Sorry Sean, I think that will be mistake to mix categories with tags. They both should be part of the core but should not compliment each other.
-Regards Santanu -- http://www.santm.com On 11/22/05, Sean Hayford O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I always used to do one file per folder (hate extensions in addresses) > ;). > > The general consensus seems that categories should remain more-or-less as is > and tags should be added, though seperate from categories. > > And I agree that both could exist happily together. And that a system of > both would be ideal. Still, I stand by my point: look at Flickr's sets and > tags: each image can only exist in one set. Because of the free-form nature > of categories, they are closer to tags. > > -Sean Hayford O'Leary > > On 11/22/05, Gregory Wild-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Only one HTML file per folder? Hardly. > > > > It's a grouping system. You group posts by category. Tags allow you > > finer control over that that doesn't require sub-categories (you can > > have the same tag across totally different categories). > > > > Tags also were intended as a kind of meta information. > > > > If people mis-apply categories or tags, that doesn't mean the system is > > broken. They aren't mutually exclusive either, they can complement each > > other perfectly. > > > > I agree WP is making it easier to mis-apply them though. The comparison > > to Flickr makes sense if you include their sets - the sets are like > > categories. It is just that Flickr uses tags as a primary navigation, > > and sets as a second. WP is the other way around. That makes more sense > > for publishing, where you'll have a broad area you are writing about but > > other smaller details that still warrant some kind of mention. > > > > "I feel that, especially with "tag" becoming a more widely > > used term, WP's admin ui should refer to categories as tags." > > > > That would be a complete an utter mis-labeling. They are two separate > > things. > > > > -- Gregory Wild-Smith > > > > > > Sean Hayford O'Leary wrote: > > > I've been toying with this thought since 1.2, but it seems all the > > > more relevant with 1.6/2.0. > > > > > > Categories aren't really categories anymore. Here's the thought: Each > > > item fits into ONE category, just as an HTML file might fit into ONE > > > folder (taxonomy). > > > But in WP (especially with on-the-fly category additions), it's really > > > more like tags (folksonomy). > > > > > > Look at Flickr's tags and look at the traditional directory/file > > > taxonomy structure. In my opinion WP's categories far better resemble > > > tags than taxonomy. > > > > > > Basic point: I feel that, especially with "tag" becoming a more widely > > > used term, WP's admin ui should refer to categories as tags. > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > -- > > > Sean Hayford O'Leary > > > _______________________________________________ > > > wp-testers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wp-testers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers > > > > _______________________________________________ > wp-testers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers > > > _______________________________________________ wp-testers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-testers
