Category:Development_Board ?

Minh Ha Duong haduong at
Tue Sep 16 21:27:13 CEST 2008

> Functional subsystems (with *s I think) is ok, but I don't think
> applications' container should be called "Application category", or that
> anything should be called "Phone model". (That's not clarifying
> anything, especially seeing the so many announcements about CAD files,
> which are also models.)
> The word "Phones" (but that's not the Hardware's new name, that's the
> Hardware Support's new name, I think there are some bugs in your list
> Minh)... so, the word "Phones" clearly identifies that the phones are in
> that. 
> Maybe "Subsystems" could be used instead Functional Subsystem even.
> Well, we could simply leave it Hardware for a few days more, I don't
> care how we call this top level category currently, more important is
> that the underlying structure is clear and that WHAT are the top level
> categories and WHATS IN THEM is now clear.

Yes. Leaving it at "Applications", "Hardware" and "Phones" is probably okay 
for now, what we should do is to explain our scheme on the top category pages 
themselves, so that it's more or less set. I have done that on 
the "Category:Applications" page.

  If we agree that the reference list of "Subsystems" is Section 3 in , then I will write 
that on the "Category:Hardware" page. This answers the next question.

> Will we mix hardware and software subsystems in subsystems? Software
> subsystems are currently in System Developers and/or Application
> Developers.

We need a new top level category to shelter the refugees from "Technical".

Minh HA DUONG, Chargé de Recherche, CNRS
CIRED, Centre International de Recherches sur l'Environnement et le 

More information about the documentation mailing list