[development] New project vocabularies
catch56 at googlemail.com
Thu Feb 12 16:14:14 UTC 2009
Tagging case studies - yes that makes sense - so then the hard node
reference to the actual project (as opposed to a mention) means you could
have a view of case studies showing all the modules used with direct links,
browsable by tag.
So in the right sidebar of the download and extend page, you still have a
Upon clicking media, you'd see:
Warner Bros. | Views, CCK, Embedded Media Field | some other tags | date
posted (or whatever)
Some Record label | Audio, Panels
Photo gallery site building howto | imagefield, imagecache, lightbox
The advantage there is you get lists of modules which are actually used /
documented, rather than lists of modules who's authors could be bothered to
And yeah there's definitely no harm in having the vocabulary and trying it
out for a while, I was just very fond of the showcase idea and didn't want
it to get lost ;)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Gábor Hojtsy <gabor at hojtsy.hu> wrote:
> Then instead of referencing the nodes from the case studies attaching
> taxonomy terms to the references, we can tag the case studies
> themselves, and just have taxonomy lists of case studies on those
> links, can't we? I mean if you'd use this data from actual case
> studies, then why not show the modules in context, where the usage is
> actually described?
> Note: IMHO we can remove the types of sites vocabulary always, if we
> find it is not working well.
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Nathaniel Catchpole
> <catch56 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > In the redesign discussions, we'd discussed having nodereferences between
> > case studies, site recipes and projects for this purpose rather than
> > That way, people documenting how particular types of sites are built
> > show which modules they used - as opposed to project owners saying 'I
> > this might be useful for'. You could then show showcases and site recipes
> > next to modules, and modules next to showcases and site recipes in a
> > structured way (and with some data munging, get aggregate data if
> > Was this discussed as an option?
> > Nat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the development