Module Slugs Naming Proposal

[manuelRod]

As the number of modules is gonna grow, having just /modules/{module-slug} can lead to difficulties when trying to find one.

Maybe a different approach would help us in the future to easily identify, to which focus area they belong to, for instance:
/modules/{focus}/{module-slug}
/modules/{focus}-{module-slug}

[mehigh]

+1 for a flat structure like /modules/{focus}-{module-slug}

[ThierryA]

Generally agree with organizing modules by focus area, I would personally prefer /modules/{focus}/{module-slug} as /modules/{focus}-{module-slug} by not be obvious to everyone, having folders for focus area makes it more obvious that modules are "grouped".

[JustinyAhin]

I agree on having a /modules/{focus}/{module-slug} structure for more readability.

[adamsilverstein]

makes sense, good suggestion @manuelRod!

[felixarntz]

I'm in favor of the nested structure /modules/{focus}/{module-slug} as well.

However, note that this will require code changes (e.g. module parsing) and documentation changes, so we need a PR. It would also mean that modules should no longer need to specify the focus in the module header, since it would already be defined by the folder name.

Let's implement the changes to make it work, but we should then only start using that new approach once an eventual PR is merged. In other words, modules added now should still rely on the flat structure without any mention of the "focus" because that's how our code and documentation work now. The PR for this one would then need to migrate any existing modules to the new structure, and after merge all new modules would need to follow that.

[ThierryA]

I would be in favor of doing it rather sooner than later to avoid having more modules needing to migrate.

[adamsilverstein]

👍🏼 I will create a PR to update the webp-uploads module and adjust our docs to reflect the new naming convention.