Re: Contents Lists

[John Fleck <jfleck inkstain net>]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:00:05PM -0400, Alexander Kirillov wrote:
> First comments:
> 
> however we beat on this tree, it is unrealistic to hope that we can
> cover all possible categories. Thus:
> 
> 1. Each and every category and subacategory may contain <other> -
>    e.g., multimedia, in addition to "image", "sound", etc, will also
>    contain "other" for multimedia other than above.
>

I would agree. While your first pass at a list seemed reasonable to me
- I couldn't think of any categories I couldn't easily fit something
into - there are bound to be new things under the sun. :)
 
> 2. I'd vote for making this categorization tree separate from
>    OMF. That is, we publish the categorization tree and recommend that
>    in OMF, "category" be chosen from this tree, but allow the doc
>    author to invent new categoies should he want it.  So if someone
>    writes a new program which he thinks belongs to "mulimedia/virtual
>    reality", let him put this as a category in metadata. This, I
>    believe, is how RPM manages installed packages. 
> 

Would this work from a technical point of view, allowing new
categories to be created?

Cheers,

-- 
John Fleck
jfleck@inkstain.net (h)
jfleck@abqjournal.com (w)
http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/
http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/