3

Today I went to add a description for a new tag. I wanted to follow the same general pattern in writing this description, but I found that since tags had been probably described by several different people, their descriptions vary in style. I think that it would have made more sense if tags were described with certain uniformity in structure--it would make it easier for the reader.

Here's example of another concerned citizen alert: https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1397/an-unofficial-style-guide-to-our-tag-wikis :)

Here's an example of how I imagine the article related to the tag may be written:

  1. A sentence or two at most describing what the tag is in an identity statement, eg. for regular-expressions tag one would write:

    Regular expressions are a formal language in automata theory
    for processing regular languages.
    

    The scheme for writing such description would be: X is of type followed by the refinement specifying how X differs from other members of the type: s.t. [list of distinct features].

  2. Followed by an optional sentence stating the relation to Emacs. This is optional because some tags don't exist outside Emacs world, while others are also used outside of the context of Emacs. For example:

    Emacs regex syntax differs from a more popular POSIX syntax.
    
  3. Followed by recommendation for when the tag should be used:

    Use this to tag questions about string searching and matching
    using C-M-s, replace-regexp, occur, grep etc.
    
| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .