Hi Shaun, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 12:38 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 18:26 +0200, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:15 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > > > We need namespaces/classes for metadata as raw DC is > > > not appropriate and hierarchical rdf types are very inelegant (and > > > unmanageable in tracker's DB). > > > > You are making a common mistake - I did that too, so a word of advice: > > you don't write the spec to adapt it to the implementation; it's really > > the other way around. Otherwise, you'll have the perfect implementation, > > but other will have to pass through hell. Remember that fixing a bad > > implementation is simple - fixing a bad spec is really not. > > > > You must design the spec *without* the implementation in mind. It's > > harder: yes. It creates a *useful* spec: yes. > > Specifications without reference implementations suck. This we agree: a reference implementation must be done in parallel with the spec design. Also, avoiding spec design by committee is a plus. But, as you say: > If I ran a standards body, I would demand > two distinct and interoperable reference implementations and a > complete set of conformance tests before I'd ever let anything > be called a standard. This means that the spec must not be designed by the implementation. Otherwise every whim of a library, or a language, used by the implementation will end up in the spec itself. What if I change the dependency chain or the language: does this make the spec's implementation-induced limitations disappear, thus breaking every other implementation? Ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
