Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Hi Jörn,
IMO the problem about this schema is that it is not generic,
i.e. it is not possible to add custom meta data sets without
changing the schema.
that's a feature.
Well, IMO Lenya should behave like a framework and define the
structure of the meta data, but not the actual content. It should
be possible to add components without modifying the core. What
if you want to use a custom Workflow component which doesn't use
version elements to store meta data, or something like that?
just to clarify: basically all i wanted to say with the whole namespace
shebang is this:
let's first write the data specification.
then implement the specification.
(as opposed to hack in a bunch of variables as needed and call them
metadata.)
i don't care whether this is done with a relaxng grammar for the xml
realm, or with a nice javadoc comment for the object realm, as long as
it's done.
i don't care about the details of this specification either.
what i do care about is stopping people from ever again introducing
multi-dimensional, semantically overloaded metadata tables (!) with
built-in extensibility (!!) represented as single strings (!!!) without
so much as a passing regard for documenting this whole pile of shit
anywhere, and then having to use (shudder!) regexes to clean up the mess.
workflowVersion in its current state is an abomination unto $deity and
must die.
fast.
violently.
--
"Open source takes the bullshit out of software."
- Charles Ferguson on TechnologyReview.com
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier, EDV-Administrator
Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Universität Duisburg-Essen, Standort Duisburg
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telefon: 0203/379-2736
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
