>>>> "Jakob" == Jakob
<jakob.voss(a)s1999.tu-chemnitz.de> writes:
Jakob> Hi, I do not understand what's wrong with the first
Jakob> [[Category:...]] approach.
There's nothing wrong with it. It's really damned good. I think the
idea is that we're going to change the syntax slightly
([[category=...]] instead of [[category:...]]) and do some different
stuff under the hood. See again:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization_with_field-value_pairs
I think that the two syntaxes are pretty much interchangeable. I think
if there's any disadvantage, it's that a page like "Wikitravel:Help"
couldn't be a category page, if categories have their own namespace.
Jakob> By the way categories are nothing but hierarchical links
Jakob> between articles. Semantically there is no big difference
Jakob> between dividing an article in subtopics and creating a
Jakob> category with a couple of articles in it.
Not true. From a graphical level, part-whole implies a tree structure
-- each child article can be part of one and only one parent article.
Category-member semantics are more twisted -- articles can be members
of multiple categories.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel -
http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide