Category talk:XML-based standards

Untitled
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It seems this Category is redundant with "Category:XML" and should simply be superceded by that category.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)

(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)
 * XML-(something else left out?)
 * XML-foo
 * XML-bar


 * Definitely tough, even core XML standards such as XML Schema are written in XML, hence making them legitimately 'xml-based'. I'm not sure there is a clear line of which are 'about XML', the 'XML Specification' subcat suggested above.  How about anything that is a W3C recommendation being considered the 'XML Specification', with the rest catted by purpose as above?Cander0000 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the same as the problem in World Wide Web, both definition and use in the same tree. Look at Category:Spreadsheets for an example of how it should be. 1st thing you'll see is a renaming, to Spreadsheet software - making it explicit that the category is for the software, not the use of the software. Uses of spreadsheet software are in Accounting, or Music, or whatever the application was, the applications are NOT in the software category. "AutomationML", one of the 1st entries in this category can certainly talk about XML in it's text, even link to XML pages, but it should have only Automation and related categories. It's understandable how the current situation arose, now it's time to change and the change needs to address all the World Wide Web categories. 69.106.253.165 (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revived talks

i like the proposed structure mentioned above.Bud0011 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)