El sáb, 20-10-2012 a las 16:27 +0200, Peter Stuge escribió: > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > So, rephrasing the example Alexandre pasted, consider: > > > > > > x11-libs/qt-core - The Qt toolkit is a comprehensive C++ application > > > development framework. > > > > > > vs. > > > > > > x11-libs/qt-core - A comprehensive C++ application development framework > > > > > > Which one is better, in your opinion? > > > > Well, I my case I would prefer second > > I agree, I also like the second example. > > > > sentence... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(linguistics)#Major_and_minor_sentences > > Suggests that even a phrase such as the second example above can be > called a (minor) sentence. > > > > but it would still end with a dot. > > I think that looks ugly and is redundant. > > Especially if we were to require that all DESCRIPTION phrases must > always be presented with a full stop, I think it is a very bad idea > to enforce that they are written into the ebuilds. Especially if > there is a rule that they will always be terminated by a full stop > then that should and must be added by tools using the ebuild. > > It makes absolutely no sense to have so frequent redundant data in > ebuilds, and it seems like full stop or no full stop is a matter of > presentation policy and should thus happen during presentation. > > > > But if it sounds rare for you, no problem. > > ebuilds are markup and not formatting IMO, and the two shouldn't be > confused. If you want to work on presentation (which is important > too!) then go for it, but in any case I don't think a full stop at > end of descriptions is really worth the cost. All user interfaces are > shitty enough already, and users are unable to deal with information > already, so please don't add redundancy like full stops would be to > the problem. > > > //Peter
Well, no problem in either way we finally choose (either "." or not), was simply trying to know what is preferred and try to unify the handling.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
