Full category proposal (was: [SVN] Tagging Bundles)

[Allan Odgaard]

On 22. Feb 2007, at 18:03, Benoit Gagnon wrote:

> Functionality : this doesn't feel right... What does Text, Source and
> Image Browser have in common ?

They add functionality to TextMate ;) Here functionality is not  
language specific.

> I think "Utilities" or "Tools" would better fit.

I don’t really like Functionality, but Utilities or Tools are IMO not  
proper either, as for example the Math bundle is neither a Tool or  
Utility, but it does add some math-functionality.

Maybe the Functionality group should be split into what are “tools”,  
though is something like support for the S5 slide show format a tool  
(it does allow you to both create, edit, and display the slide show)?  
Most other things are likewise in a gray area when it comes to what  
they actually are, category-wise.

> Plain text, imo, should not be there. Actually, if the
> bundle itself has no syntax and is mostly (if not entirely) composed
> of text commands, perhaps it should be renamed to "Text utilities" ?

I may remove Source, Text, and TextMate from the categories and make  
these bundles mandatory.

> Do Bundles necessarily need to be named according to the type of
> document they serve rather than the functionality they provide ?

Nope, though mostly makes things easier :)

> Apache, Lighttp, SSH-Config: How about grouping those in a "System
> configuration" category ? I would expect all "conf" bundles to be
> under the same category. Not sure Apache and Lighttpd are that closely
> related to the "Web developer" category just because they serve HTTP
> requests.

The thing with Apache is that it also has commands for restarting the  
httpd demon, etc. So not “just” for editing a config file, but  
providing support for Apache -- that could mean it should go into  
Application support, but I doubt people would expect it there, and  
Lighttpd only does the syntax highlight, so is not really app-support…

I do think Apache is related to “Web development” though.

> Otherwise it could be difficult to find places fo other the
> config files in the future. Say for example, a crontab or sendmail
> bundle.

True…

> I share your view on the Application support / Mac specific overlap.
> I'd drop the second one and put everything in Application support.

Though there is a lot of Mac-specific stuff which is not Application  
support, like Rez-file support, Installer-files, MacPorts-files, etc.

> ActionScript: Should etiher be under "Client side" or in Application
> support/Scripting Language as it's closely related to Flash and not a
> web-specific language.

Yeah, I’d probably prefer the latter then.

> Your comment on Writer/Documentation vs Programming/Documentation is
> right; it should definitely be the latter.

I moved it.