I had already mentioned this in the ‘introduction’ and pointed out that the established schema is socket:<type> and not socket:<category>:<type>.
Now I would like to take up the topic again and ask whether it makes sense from your point of view to think about transferring these tags such as socket:device:usb-a/c etc. to the usual socket:<type> scheme. For me, there are two main reasons in favour of this:
all other socket types follow the socket:<type> scheme.
The subdivision into categories unnecessarily restricts the usability of the tag. For example, USB-C can also be used to charge e-bikes and e-scooters and not just devices. The distinction is already made by amenity=charging_station/device_charging_station, for example.
I don’t think we ever had a complete proposal for these tags, they just got into existence. Now they are used over 1,000 times compared to about 40 socket:usb in differing spellings which are not even useful because the actual type of connector is missing.
If there is the wish to change them, then there should be a proposal for this.
IMHO, I don’t see a reason for this: There is no harm done in having sub-categories instead of one huge list. All those socket:device form a proper sub-family of power connections - small, low-voltage, non-rugged, universal power delivery. Compare that to the regular mains-connected high-voltage power outlets or the various specialized charging connectors of single vendors.
The term ‘device’ might not be perfect, but tags don’t have to be a perfect match to their dictionary definitions, they just need to be a recognizable, documented description of one well-defined property.