From: Piotr B. <ba...@o2...> - 2009-12-29 03:11:23
|
Hi, Aleksey Cheusov writes, quoting me: [...] >> Firstly, the project could be categorized as both "*::DICT" and >> "*::Dictionary", if they existed. One doesn't hurt the other. So why not >> let it be, e.g.: > >> Database > AGAIU sf.net doesn't read Database category as Textual databases. > It's primarily for RDBS. That may be just history+numbers. Native XML databases are still relatively new, but some of the players are here: eXist, sedna and dbXML, for example, but a search returns others as well (myxmldb, xdbm, baseX, etc.) There's ozone, digimech and JDOInstruments among the OODBs. Some text-based systems as well. DICT should be ok there ;-) > >> Internet > Too generic. True, either you keep it or you eliminate it :-) >> Education::Library::Dictionary (I'd back you up on this) > Ok > >> Formats and Protocols::Protocols::DICT > Ok > >> The first three categories would describe DICT as a project, and the >> fourth would be a mother category for projects focusing on DICT. > >> What do you (Aleksey and Others) think? > In general idea is fine. Wonderful :-) I'm waiting for a response from an SF admin concerning the suggestion I mentioned earlier (TEI). I hope to learn something about the process of approval of new categories and will let you know where the stress should be put in such requests. We might need to ask for some help from the list, if the number of supporters counts as well. I mailed him at the worst possible moment, right after they began a holiday break, so it may take a while, if he operates on a LIFO basis, like I do sometimes. So long, Piotr |