From Fedora Project Wiki

(New section: The great nesting debate)
(inserting my username call)
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
Nesting is in place for a lot of sections, and since it isn't breaking search/indexing, we're at least going to need to take this in stages.  It all comes down to the strength of the argument.
 
Nesting is in place for a lot of sections, and since it isn't breaking search/indexing, we're at least going to need to take this in stages.  It all comes down to the strength of the argument.
 +
 +
[[User:Kwade|quaid]]

Revision as of 06:06, 29 June 2008

Stop (medium size).png
On nesting
I disagree with nesting except for pure utility pages. Nesting makes indexes on category pages such as this one very difficult and user-unfriendly. There are other ways to mark a page belongs to a group (such as categorization or branding). - nim

The great nesting debate

I don't disagree with the sentiment; I'm not clear myself what is right/wrong/best/worst. There is a lot of entrenched thinking that supports nesting, and to move away from that we need to address those ideas and needs. My biggest concerns are:

  1. Collision of names in the flat namespace as different subprojects have similar needs
    • In a single-audience (e.g. "encyclopedia readers" for Wikipedia) this is less of a concern; with multiple audiences, confusion can arise. For example, is the User_Guide for the end-user audience or the contributor audience? User of what? Etc.
  2. Naming structure is similary to nesting without the visual cues

Nesting is in place for a lot of sections, and since it isn't breaking search/indexing, we're at least going to need to take this in stages. It all comes down to the strength of the argument.

quaid