Robert Kern wrote:
On 2009-12-02 11:43 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
While more structured meta-data is generally better than less,
I wonder why we have to add URLs for all these things.
The home page of a project will usually provide the URLs
in some form already and if there is no home page, the
long description can be used.
A valid argument for the duplication would be to provide the user
with faster and more standardized access to those resources.
OTOH, they don't really mean anything for computerized consumption.
I believe it was my comment in the PyPI comments thread on python-dev
that inspired this idea. I suggested the Repository-Browse-URL as a way
for PyPI users to very quickly (with one click) view the source code of
the project in order to evaluate it quickly. Personally, I get a much
better idea of the suitability of a project from a quick browse of the
code than short comments and ratings. Having it as a separate item in
the official metadata encourages authors to make it available and allows
PyPI to put it in a standard place that PyPI users can navigate to quickly.
The Bug-Tracker-URL was not in my suggestion, but the logic supporting
it is somewhat similar. Some authors want to make sure that bug reports
that might otherwise incorrectly go in the PyPI comments go to the
specified bug tracker instead.
As a user, I like the idea of having a few links staring me in the face
in a standardized place and order, instead of having to possibly 'wade
through' an idiosyncratic home page. 3 or 4 should be enough.
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
