The reason is this: The most time-consuming aspect of information storage-retrieval is in the retrieval half. How often do you say, “Oh, where did I put that?” or “What did I name that again?” It doesn’t take much time to just throw something somewhere (storage).

So, we need a good system for storage that makes retrieval easy. That system needs be quick, though. Otherwise you’ll just put all the weight in the front-end (storage) trying to figure out what to label it or how many levels deep to put it - and then wind up forgetting it in a week anyway.

My suggestion, for tagging personal assets, one to three labels should suffice. Tagging public assets (for folksonomy), go hog-wild. :-)

update: Just realized i made myself look like a liar if you look at that second graphic. I’ve got *5* tags! I took that screenshot early on when I began experimenting with tagging personal assets and todos for information storage. I only learned that a shallow system is better after toying with a very deep system as shown above. :-P

The point I’m making is not to get hung up on the introduction of non-standard techniques and avoid them in this case. Some think that the addition of these properties is going to debilitate their code. If you practice sound coding tactics like progressive enhancement, you’ll avoid much of the troubles of future (non)compliance.

And I totally agree with you that the potential for abuse is high, but as with any technology, those who improperly use it will be sifted out and *hopefully* learn from the mistakes.

I am not saying Webkit is bad. It gets some things right that no one else does. It is a bit behind on other features. As for this new stuff: Transitions may one day become a usable standard. Today the potential for abuse is way too high. Gradients is a much better proposal.

http://thenewhighstandard.com/post/32383983

@cd Yh! wh nds vwls nwy?! ;-)

@Dan Hrm, Thanks for pointing that out.

@natalie Yes.. I am making you get out of your reader and twhirl… just this one time though. So, thank you for gracing us with your input. :-P

Spam is a waste of time. I believe it’s an assault on our attention and productivity. Think about it: the millions and millions of pieces that get processed by human eyes,even for just a second each adds up to a lot of wasted time. Of course, if you’re signing up for twitter your setting yourself up for huge distraction anyway. So… moot? :-)

Anyway, I think putting a name on it is important. I’m a bit of a technical communicator and having vernaculars that are easy to remember is important. I like the nastiness that “spit” connotes, but to Dan’s point, it’s taken… I found this today after someone sent me a message for the misspelling of this word:

twaddle |?twädl| informal
noun
trivial or foolish speech or writing; nonsense : he dismissed the novel as self-indulgent twaddle. See note at nonsense .

verb [ intrans. ] archaic
talk or write in a trivial or foolish way : what is that old fellow twaddling about?

DERIVATIVES
twaddler |?twädl?r; ?twädl-?r| |?twødl?r| |?twødl?r| noun
ORIGIN late 18th cent.: alteration of earlier twattle, of unknown origin.

I’m serious. I can’t make this stuff up. I got that from my Mac’s dictionary.