Slashdot Mirror
Labels Not Tags, Says Google
Ashraf Al Shafaki writes "The word 'tags' is the one in common use on the Web today and is one of the distinctive features of Web 2.0. Ever since Gmail came out, Google has decided to use the term 'label' instead of the term 'tag' despite they are basically the exact same thing and have the exact same function. Why is Google using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term? Is there a real difference between a tag and a label?"
Yeah, pretty much like the Motorola phones. When you create a folder on a MicroSD card (photos, videos, music, etc) it'll consider the folder name a "category", and the whole UI is based on that concept.
I believe its much more logical to consider folders as categories and subcategories instead of just directories. That's what I do when I store my data, and that's the logic behind my folder names.
Eudora and Thunderbird use the term labels. MS Entourage and MS Outlook use the term categories. By the way, is there some standards document like RFC saying any web app, especially webmail, has to use the term tags?
"html/xml tags"
For which I'm pretty sure the proper term is "element."
Who doesn't like free music?
That's exactly what a "tag" is (except it doesn't mention XML's <name/> syntax, but that's just a shortcut anyway).
<h1>all of this is an element</h1>
<h1> the thing on the left is a tag (an opening tag)
</h1> the thing on the left is another tag (a closing tag)
No, a 'Label' is a piece of paper or some other tangible medium with information on it that is firmly affixed to an item (like the Dell label on my monitor). A tag is the same thing, but instead of being attached directly on the product it it only partially attached such that it 'hangs off', such as the tag on my matress, or on the ear of the deer in my backyard that the environmentalist relased..
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
actually, Google Reader only refers to them as tags on the Settings page, on the rest of the site they're called folders
You are aware that there exists a large quantity of porn directed at females, right? It's not just men that like porn... PEOPLE LIKE SEX. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can stop posting this drivel to slashdot.
My other car is first.
To be fair, there's been hard linking functionality in NTFS since the first version of XP. It may even have been there in Win2000, but I can't remember for sure. The problem, of course, is that Explorer itself offers no support for the concept, and Microsoft doesn't even ship command-line tools with the OS itself. But they do exist, and can be exploited, if somewhat awkwardly, with various tools.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
Hard links anyone? They've been around for nearly 40 years.
Hard links don't work across filesystems (or drives, in Windows-speak. or Volumes, in Mac-speak).
Actually that is a restricion in Unix, it refuses to create such hard links long before the file system sees the attempt. This was done to make it impossible to create circular dependencies. I don't know why they felt this restricion was necessary, it does not really match the Unix design philosophy. Underlying file systems certainly do support hard links to directories, as this is how the "." and ".." files work.