response to the further thoughts

diff --git a/doc/todo/Multiple_categorization_namespaces.mdwn b/doc/todo/Multiple_categorization_namespaces.mdwn
index ee3bbd88d0c2219af9e4df9b65a345d992befba8..1861d860cf2f3eec688d25f5ea33f9318bc019eb 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/Multiple_categorization_namespaces.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/Multiple_categorization_namespaces.mdwn
@@ -56,17 +56,25 @@ and the tags would appear at the bottom of the post, the Rubrica next to the tit
 
 Aside from the name of the plugin (and thus of the main directive), which could be `tag`, `meta`, `field` or whatever (maybe extending `meta` would be the most sensible choice), the features we want are
 
-  1. allow multiple values per type/attribute/field/whatever (fields currently only allows one)
-  2. allow both hidden and visible references (à la tag vs taglink)
-  3. allow each type/attribute/field to be exposed under multiple queries (e.g. tags and categories; this is mostly important for backwards compatibility, not sure if it might have other uses too)
-  4. allow arbitrary types/attributes/fields/whatever (even 'undefined' ones)
+1. allow multiple values per type/attribute/field/whatever (fields currently only allows one)
+   * Agreed about multiple values; I've been considering whether I should add that to `field`. -- K.A.
+2. allow both hidden and visible references (a la tag vs taglink)
+   * Hidden and visible references; that's fair enough too.  My approach with `ymlfront` and `getfield` is that the YAML code is hidden, and the display is done with `getfield`, but there's no reason not to use additional approaches. -- K.A.
+3. allow each type/attribute/field to be exposed under multiple queries (e.g. tags and categories; this is mostly important for backwards compatibility, not sure if it might have other uses too)
+   * I'm not sure what you mean here. -- K.A.
+4. allow arbitrary types/attributes/fields/whatever (even 'undefined' ones)
+   * Are you saying that these must be typed, or are you saying that they can be user-defined? -- K.A.
 
 Each type/attribute/field/whatever (predefined, user-defined, arbitrary) would thus have the following parameters:
 
-  * `directive` : the name of the directive that can be used to set the value as a hidden reference; we can discuss whether, for pre- or user-defined types, it being undef means no directive or a default directive matching the attribute name would be defined.
-  * `linkdirective` : the name of the directive that can be used for a visible reference; no such directive would be defined by default
-  * `linktype` : link type for (hidden and visible) references
-  * `linkbase` : akin to the tagbase parameter
-  * `queries` : list of template queries this type/attribute/field/whatever is exposed to
+* `directive` : the name of the directive that can be used to set the value as a hidden reference; we can discuss whether, for pre- or user-defined types, it being undef means no directive or a default directive matching the attribute name would be defined.
+  * I still want there to be able to be enough flexibility in the concept to enable plugins such as `yamlfront`, which sets the data using YAML format, rather than using directives. -- K.A.
+* `linkdirective` : the name of the directive that can be used for a visible reference; no such directive would be defined by default
+* `linktype` : link type for (hidden and visible) references
+  * Is this the equivalent to "field name"? -- K.A.
+* `linkbase` : akin to the tagbase parameter
+  * Is this a field-name -> directory mapping? -- K.A.
+* `queries` : list of template queries this type/attribute/field/whatever is exposed to
+  * I'm not sure what you mean here. -- K.A.
 
 Where this approach is limiting is on the kind of data that is passed to (template) queries. The value of the metadata fields might need some massaging (e.g. compare how tags are passed to tags queries vs cateogires queries). I have problems on picturing an easy way to make this possible user-side (i.e. via templates and not in Perl modules). Suggestions welcome.