On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> OK, I have some thoughts on this patch. Firstly, let me say that I
> think a description element is a good thing. In fact I thought that
> was how the target descriptions should have been done
Which is possible, now that data types can be nested into targets as
well.
> My concern is the fact that description has been implemented as a
> data type.
Mea culpa - I advised Craeg to do so.
> The description, is not a datatype.
Not sure why you think so. In the longer run I was thinking of
something like
<description>
This is a great project, it does ...
<markup type="html"><![CDATA[
<h1>Great Project</h1>
<p>This is a great project, it does ...
]]></markup>
<markup type="docbook"><![CDATA[
<sect1>
<title>Great Project</title>
<para>This is a great project, it does ...
</sect1>
]]></markup>
</description>
and various frontends could ask the description element for the type
of description they can handle best ... This would include stuff like
generating build documentations in various formats.
> The fact that this datatype does not hold its own data but redirects
> it straight into the project object is an indicator of this
> mismatch, IMHO.
This is an implementation detail - the description element could very
well hold its data by itself (and should IMHO).
> BTW, You can't currently have two <description> elements although I
> guess we could decide what that means and potentially concatenate
> them.
Agreed.
If you prefer, we can role back the change, discuss it and schedule it
for 1.5 (sorry, Craeg).
Stefan
