On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > Am Samstag, den 19.01.2008, 01:28 +0100 schrieb Olav Vitters: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 07:40:00PM +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > > > > > Am Freitag, den 18.01.2008, 15:57 -0200 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom: > > > > I can see that xml might be a little less beautiful to the eye, and > > > > also > > > > that text files might be a little less beautiful to a machine who has > > > > to parse some custom format that might be subject to change, the > > > > great > > > > thing about xml is that is very easy to read for a computer and > > > > for a human. > > > > > > Yes, that's how XML was designed, and this promise works pretty well for > > > XHTML and many other XML based language - but producing a XML based > > > language thats human and machine friendly needs some attention. The DOAP > > > examples I've seen so far do not show the slightest evidence, that DOAP > > > was designed for humans. Most parts of a DOAP file just is RDF and > > > namespace boilerplate. Who should remember all that crap? Well, of > > > course a template file could be used for all that boilerplate stuff. > > > Well, unfortunately the need for using template files, is a very good > > > sign for poor language design - IMHO. > > > > You plan on changing that stuff every second or so?!? IMO after the > > standard DOAP files have been generated, it should be ok to be edited. > > I'll probably ask e.g. GHOP to fill in any missing detail anyway. > > So you have a solution for existing projects - although I question the > morality of abusing GHOP students for filling out that binary junk.
Ok, after such a wording I'll finally say the truth - I am a bad person. > New projects still would have to deal with editing highly ugly files. That is my goal in life. > I agree, that DOAP has a purpose, and those who want to use it, shall > use it. Nevertheless DOAP is a highly ugly format, and I see no > rationale in suggesting and even enforcing usage of a highly ugly file > format. No new maintainership for you -- my intention. > > You say that e.g. MAINTAINERS is easy. Well, my parser script doesn't > > agree. > > > > I don't see what is hard about: > > shortdesc>Java-based build tool</shortdesc> > > Would be nice, if DOAP would be that simple. But in reality DOAP > requires usage of very long XML namespaces, and usages of very strange > attribute names. Yes, I know - they are defined by RDF - but this > doesn't make them less strange. In my evil plan I really should rather use: MaintainerId1: etc MaintainerName1: etc Descriptionnl: Descriptionde: > > > > vs: > > shortdesc: Java-based build tool > > > > > > Both have to be thoroughly checked for syntax, as maintainers will get > > them wrong, often. Yes, XML is harder, that is why there should be > > examples. It isn't that hard. Further, usually it is only a one-time > > exercise. > > So you seriously suggest, that switching to a more complicated format > will cause less problems? Sorry, but were are the cameras? Indeed, I didn't mean anything else, especially after saying "Yes, XML is harder" I am sorry -- I cannot take responses such as this seriously. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
