[wp-hackers] Re: Blogroll, Bookmarks, Links?

[Otto]

On 6/26/07, Marci O'Daffer <marci at odaffer.net> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, Otto, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're
> advocating the addition of WP features to turn plain ol' "links" into what
> you call "bookmarks"....additional programming to make them behave in ways
> they don't by nature....is that correct? And these are mostly not things WP
> links/bookmarks are capable of right now, right?

Yes and no. To a large degree, yes, I want them to be capable of more.
But, a lot of the things I'm suggesting they are capable of right now.
>From what I gather, XFN is rarely used. Categories are not often used.
But categories are similar to tagging, for example. They had ratings
(and still do in the database).

> I keep hearing you say you
> "want" your WP links to behave in all these different ways, but they don't
> right now. So basically, you're actually advocating a change in the entire
> function of links/bookmarks/blogroll, not just a naming convention. Am I
> getting close? :)

No. What I'm saying is that "Bookmarks" are basically "links with
support structure", by any realistic definition. Wordpress's Bookmarks
fit that description. Yes, I'd like them to do more, but they are
already Bookmarks. They are already more than links.

> I'm not opposed to extending the functionality of links to include being
> able to make them behave in new and trendy ways, but ultimately they are
> still links. And I still think MOST people are still just going to want to
> make links.

If that is all that "most" people want, then why not remove the
functionality entirely?

No, seriously, you can make groups of "links" using a Text widget, can
you not? They look much the same in the sidebar regardless of whether
or not you use the links widget with bookmarks or a text widget with
a-href's in it, right?

So why have it at all, if all you want to do is put links in the sidebar?

> Otto, you have a great use for social bookmarks and lots of ideas for them
> that I have no objection to whatsover.... but it has been my understanding
> that the developers of WP want to keep the core pretty basic, and relegate
> the unique, extended functionality to plugins. Maybe that is the best way. If you want
> your links to do all those things, perhaps you (or someone) could write a plugin.

I fully agree. However, in order for this to occur, there must be some
more basic support structures available to do it with. I'm not
avocating adding all the *functionality*, I'm advocating adding the
support structure to do that sort of thing with. Generic, basic,
structure to be used in all sorts of ways.

Taxonomy is rapidly evolving in trunk. Why not add the ability to
include generic taxonomy with the links table? Right now, I can
associate posts to multiple "words" in the taxonomy structure, so why
can't I associate links with multiple "words" in the same way?

The links table has a lot of columns, many of which are unused or
single use columns only. Why not have a links_meta table instead,
which associates any sort of key/value metadata to the links? It works
very well for posts.

> Then others who want their links to do that, can have
> it, and the rest of WP users can have their plain ol' links.

The rest of WP users already have their "plain ol' links". Text
Widgets replace what you're suggesting in all possible ways.

> Where I was going was to say that for the purposes of the Admin of WP I
> think the name Links is most accurate, and least confusing to most people.
> If all these extra features are added as part of the CORE functionality of
> WP, then maybe they will warrant a new name. But still I would suggest
> something new like xLinks, for extended links, rather than bookmarks, which
> again, MOST people think of as being something personal stored in their
> browser....unless they are into social bookmarking, which I still think MOST
> people who use the web for business are not.

I'm not going to argue with you, because all of what you posted above
is opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to. Instead, I'll just
state that I categorically and totally disagree with everything you
stated in the above paragraph. There is not one single point at which
we agree on anything there. Not a one. In short, I'm not going to
argue with you because I would have to write a complete essay on how
wrong I think you are. ;-)