Category talk:XML-based standards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've placed the {cleancat} template. My concerns:
- Far too many pages in category
- Subjects of many types grouped together, could be subcategorised:
- Standards *about* XML
- Standards which happen to be expressed *in* XML
- Standards for individual uses of XML (XSL, etc...)
Stevage 15:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Qazzian 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds a good idea for me too. This category has already been renamed in the past, from XML standards to XML-based standards to avoid ambiguity, now that it has has become very big, it needs to be divided in more precise categories--Khalid hassani 11:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems this Category is redundant with "Category:XML" and should simply be superceded by that category. As for the un-grouping of subtopics, there are already some existing subgroups (xml based programming languages, xml-based user interface languages, xml based template languages etc ... on the "Category:XML" page).
The problem is that the word "Standards" is not sufficiently precise to distinguish anything meaningful in this context. Anything that qualifies for a legitimate wikipedia XML-related article is *by definition* a "standard" (or at least a proposed standard) otherwise it's not noteworthy enough to merit an article.
Here is a specific proposal for subcategorization under "Category:XML"
- XML Specification (aka "about XML")
- XML Syntax
- XML Alternatives
- XML Extensions
- (whatever else)
- XML Languages (aka "in XML")
- XML Programming languages
- XML User interface languages
- XML Data serialzation formats
- XML Template Languages
- (whatever else)
- XML Initiatives (aka "substantially related to XML")
- (whatever people are doing that relies on xml)
- XML-related (aka "miscellaneous XML")
- XML-cricitism (eg Metacrap)
- XML-(something else left out?)
- XML-foo
- XML-bar
(NOTE: because XML is variously described as both a "syntax" and "a group of languages" there is necessarily going to be overlap and multiple interpretations that will defy a clear and universally acceptable categorization. Therefore, the primary objective should be to resolve the problem with the use of the word "standards" and proceed from there) Dreftymac 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
