Why should it mention Haskell?
Because it's about Haskell. Specifically, XML processing in Haskell. That makes it essentially off-topic for the site, and having this info in the title would be a great service to users of the site.
Should it also mention Extended markup language in the title?
I would say it ought to mention XML in the title, but since a title search for "XML"
would get a hit on "HaXml", it already does, as far as I'm concerned.
But the node doesn't discuss Haskell.
I'm not sure how you can say that. It mentions Haskell by name three times, and refers to (by my count)
three items of Haskell-specific software and a Haskell-specific paper.
it's (sic) parent node has more Haskell related content than the HaXml node.
By no measure other than number of words; but the parent node has lots of words,
about quite a bit of stuff other than Haskell.
was posted as a response to a question at the tail end of the parent node.
It doesn't even discuss lists, or getting the top N values.
Not sure where the disconnect is, but it does now.
But a reply that mentions HaXml gets all the flak...
You calling me a computer-language racist? Because that is certainly not what's going on here.
...why we're discussing whether or not "HaXml" covers the content of the article...
It doesn't cover
it, and that's one of my major complaints.
know that HaXml is a Haskell-specific tool for doing XML processing,
but try putting yourself in the average ignorant monk's (e.g. my) shoes for a sec.
Have a heart.
...and why we are not discussing the mousetrap title of its parent.
Granted, "better mousetrap", by itself, would be a lousy title. But "getting top N values from list X"
does a fair job of summarizing the OP's problem.
And if someone wanted to make the case that some node intermediate in the thread would have been
a good place to retitle due to shift of subject, I for one could be convinced.
In any case, the argument that "HaXml" is a better title than "Ah, but Haskell DOES have a module
for processing XML: HaXML!" (or whatever) is completely unsupportable.
I think, in general, that data shouldn't be duplicated.
Different strokes, I guess; but one of my long-standing peeves is that some people (e.g. my boss)
send out emails with subject lines like
Meeting at 3:00 in room 12 to review document ABC-XYZ-001
and then, in the body, say "The subject room has been reserved at the subject time to discuss
the subject document". That is a PITA, plain and simple. So is the (probably more common)
converse situation: All the details in the body, the subject says "For your info". (Admins
are more prone to do this, in my experience.)
Point is, data duplication between subject and body is a matter of great convenience for the
reader, and the cost to the writer is small.
...The newest node page doesn't have a problem with it...
My point has nothing to do with how the site handles root vs.
Didn't mean to imply such.
Oh, right. It's common that a node that's referring to more than one node in the thread reflects that in the title.
All I can say is that it's a matter of continuity. As written, the node in question
depends rather heavily on continuity of context with the rest of the thread;
therefore, changing the title makes no sense and does nothing but inconvenience the reader.
OTOH, the node could have been written in such a way as to present the issue "stand-alone";
and in this case, an appropriate retitling would not be out of line.
"Re^11: ..." would have told me instantly what the node was about...
I for one never recommended that the original default title be restored.
I have only argued in favor of a "good" title, which "HaXml" is not.
My original consideration suggested (IIRC) "You can use HaXml for munging XML in Haskell",
or something close to that. I've no doubt a much better title than that could be devised.