Magnus Manske wrote:
Well, I tried the category function on my local
machine again, and it
_seems_ to work OK. Before this goes "live", there's one point I'd
like to mention:
In the current CVS, "category" is _not_ a real namespace. While that
simplifies the search queries, it has a few downsides:
* Category descriptions will be counted as articles (or is that a good
thing?)
* Queries (invoked every time you view a "Category:" page) do a string
comparison ("Category:%")
* [[:Category:abc]] will generate a category link, rather than an
inline link (despite the leading ":")
I thought I'd better ask before creating a "real" new namespace, though.
It's a cause for joy to see that some progress is being made in this
area. Although I seak as a non-technical person I can appreciate the
concerns that Timwi has raised. Still I would dearly love to see
something on line soon.
The features that I consider important remain the same as they have been
at other times when this subject has been raised. An article must be
capable of accepting multiple categorizations in multiple systems.
Plain text categories are essential, but so too should various coding
systems. My simple suggestion remains that a category which begins with
two capital letters would indicate a code; exactly which code would be
indicated by the specific choice of those two letters.
I know that my suggestion will lead to many schemes that go nowhere, but
I believe that that process is a natural part of organic wiki growth.
If a particular categorization scheme turns out to be nothing more than
clutter, the community will make that decision by failing to use it.
Ec