On 2 December 2014 at 15:24, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Scott Ferguson wrote: >> >> On 2 December 2014 at 11:49, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> Having just waded through this thread, >> >> My sincere sympathies. >> >>> and then reading the standard itself, >> >> Based on what you are quoting - that's the Base Directory >> Specification, which is part of the XDG Standards >> >>> I can only conclude that it may not be "evil" but it is a horribly >>> written >>> standard. >> >> Lacking in comprehensive detail specifications? >> >>> To start with, there's absolutely no context: >> >> "Base Directory Specification" >> >>> The introduction reads, simply "Various specifications specify files and >>> file formats. This specification defines where these files should be >>> looked >>> for by defining one or more base directories relative to which files >>> should >>> be located." >>> >>> Nothing about where the standard applies,
"Base Directory Specification", logically, precedes the Introduction. By doing so it frames the documents i.e. provides context. >>> what kinds of files are being >>> talked about, >> >> I believe the very next section entitled "Basics" provides an overview >> that covers those items. >> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/ar01s02.html > > > No... it lists a collection of concepts, again, with no context. Does it not mention files? Please try and interleave your responses below the point you are replying to - this is not the Gish Gallop mailing list. > > Somehow (from XDG) > "The XDG Base Directory Specification is based on the following concepts: > > * > > There is a single base directory relative to which user-specific > data files should be written. This directory is defined by the > environment variable |$XDG_DATA_HOME|. > > * etc....." > > Is NOT context. Nor did I say it was. I said, and the post remains unchanged - that "Base Directory" is the context. > > In contrast to, to pick a non-random example, the Linux Standard Base Which demonstrates only that you ignored, or are unable to understand the following:- <snipped> >> >> >>> on what kinds of systems. >> >> Any system/application that chooses to adopt it. In terms of OS, it's >> used on Linux, Mac (Apple?), and Windows. >> >>> Nothing about what the standard is to be used for. >> >> "a set of common interfaces for desktop environments" >> >> >> https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders?action=show&redirect=GnomeGoals%2FXDGConfigFolders > > > Wow.... a web page, buried way deep inside a specific project's web site, > not referenced in the standard itself - does not a standard make. Maybe, > just maybe a design document. Is that a novel way of saying "Thanks Scott for doing my homework for me?" > >> >>> Nothing about who maintains the standard, >> >> Waldo Bastian, Ryan Lortie, and Lennart Poettering are credited on the >> page you referenced, anyone can contribute - simply join the mailing >> lists, which is all development is done:- >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > > > Again, not a standard. Do you not understand your own comment that I was replying to "Nothing about who maintains the standard," - or are you being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps, and I hope not - trolling? > >> >>> the process by which it is >>> maintained and updated, >> >> See above. >> >>> where to find the latest version. >> >> I found them here:- >> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/ >> >> I don't know where you read your version. > > > Again, not stated anywhere in the standard. I neither said nor implied that it was - nor that it *should* be. I was simply responding to your comment with a relevance. It's the basis of effective communication. Do try it. >> >> >>> No references. >>> >>> >>> The lack of any of this, makes the rest of it essentially useless. >> >> If you expect a simple guide to the standard to include all of those >> points - then you are correct. >> Definitely agreed that what you've referenced is lacking in >> comprehensive detail, especially the sort I'd expect to see in an ISO >> standard. But then Freedesktop.org standards are not formal standards. >> And unless you follow the mailing lists, and have followed the history >> of X Desktop Group, it's very hard to understand. > > > Hence, my point. It's somewhat pretentious to call it a standard, I fear, for lack of a better metaphor - you are trying to make a fish out of a hat. I took the time to read and consider what I was replying to - it would be polite if you could reciprocate. The XDG Base Directory standard is a "defacto", "informal" standard. > and by > any measure of a well written, well coordinated standards document - it > simply is horrendous. > >> > > > And their documents can legitimately be considered both standards, and well > written. *Formal standards* As is their purpose - something you seem prepared to put an inordinate amount of effort into *not* recognizing (which the paragraph I quoted above succinctly states), whilst adding considerable noise to the signal. >> >> >> Unlike these groups, freedesktop.org is just a "collaboration zone" >> where ideas and code can be tossed around, and de facto specifications >> encouraged. > > > Which should not be referred to, or considered anything like a standard. It is not, nor should it be. Anybody trying to do so - like those that try hard to demonstrate that it's not what it claims not to be - should be vigorously dissuaded for wasting precious time and adding to the sum total of stupid. Please take that up with whoever misled you to believe otherwise. A *formal standard* and *defacto standard*, not surprisingly, are not synonyms - though confusingly to the tl;dr crowd "pacifically", "arguably", they are. > > Miles Fidelman > Yours in Debian solidarity -- "Their stupidity does not amaze me, its when they're smart that amazes me. It's baffling whenever you find someone who's smart — incredible. Soon you'll have zoos for such things" ~ Frank Zappa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/camt2cqpgtyah6kewhadriqhgqa3autc7nvtnwpnlsuzhfys...@mail.gmail.com