Great initiative, and I 100% agree with the general direction of these modifications. I also believe we can fine tune some of the specifics to lay a clear and structured path for how a diverse set of app standards can be introduced via ERCs, in the future. Like so:
Redefinition of Category for ERCs
Wallet = For standardisation across wallets (hardware or software, full-node or light-node, program-managed or key-managed, etc.)
Token = For token design concepts and token contract development practises(NFTs, FTs, SFTs, SBTs, RWAs, etc.)
Metadata = For proposals around on-chain/off-chain metadata standards used in apps, tokens, etc. (Eg: Digital Art, collectibles, RWAs, Identity, Voting, etc.)
DAO = For proposals regarding DAO standards and practises.
Reevaluation of Type
It would be very beneficial to retain this indeed.
Potential Additional Changes
A great placeholder example to better ensure this flexibility and future adjustment is a Subcategory to allow for precision in the various categories, if ever need be.
Add top-level Identifier (Optional)
A top-level identifier with only two options to identify EIP from ERC might just be the cleaner path to take. Like so:
Camp = [EIP | ERC] (Class might also be a good alternative to Camp)
Example Header:
Camp: ERC
Number: 9027
Type: Standards
Category: Wallets
*Sub-category: Hardware wallet
insert the other fields that usually follow here
In conclusion, this suggestion can serve as the foundation for a detailed and robust taxonomy that all app-level developers and contributors, both technical and non-technical, can use when proposing app standards to the community.