| |||||||||||||
Hierarchical organizationHierarchical organizationPosted Jan 30, 2013 21:45 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Hierarchical organization by jospoortvliet Parent article: Seigo: Plasma.next()?
> Note how Gmail (which uses tagging) works just fine with IMAP (which uses folders): mails which have multiple tags just show up in all the 'folders' in traditional UI's. Works just fine.
however, you note that people still use the concept of folders (and sub-folders) to navigate the tags.
You could do exactly the same thing with traditional IMAP servers via single-instance-store of the file at multiple places in the filesystem.
(Log in to post comments)
Hierarchical organization Posted Jan 31, 2013 3:18 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I'm not sure what you are describing is functionally or technically different than tags, it's just semantically different. Well, trying to shoe-horn a filesystem (with hard-links for example) into a tagging system brings along baggage such as enforced parent/child relationships that artificially constrain and complicate the system and should probably be worked around by using something designed for tags.
Hierarchical organization Posted Jan 31, 2013 4:58 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
my point is that tags are not something magic that achieve things that could never have been done before, and they don't require you to throw away the filesystem info.
Tagging is extremely useful to supplement filesystem location info, but trying to have it substitute for that info is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||