On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 18:24 +0100, Claude Paroz wrote: > Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 17:44 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : > > Le vendredi 20 mars 2009, à 11:27 -0500, Shaun McCance a écrit : > > > I wonder if we could define some sort of non-RDF project > > > info file format that people actually wouldn't mind using. > > > Something flexible and well-defined enough to provide more > > > information that could be picked up by Pulse, but still > > > plain-text enough that humans would write and read it. > > > > We certainly could. Something like:
[...] > > > > And it's certainly not hard to write a script do convert this to DOAP if > > we want. > > > > Now, does it make sense to have such a format? I don't know :-) > > Why always reinvent the wheel :-( > Despite his verbosity, DOAP is standard, there are tools to parse it, it > can be used by other GNOME infrastructure apps, etc. > Is it such a big deal for programmers to read/produce XML syntax? Seriously, I don't care. I can parse DOAP files, and I can parse anything else that isn't complete garbage. Go read the desktop-devel-list archives from January 2008. Then get back to me on whether you want to try to convince our developers to maintain DOAP files. It's not a battle I feel like fighting. I've long since given up on using RDF as a source format. It's an interchange format. Produce your data in a way that's conducive to content producers. Write tools to massage that data into a format that's conducive to interchange. Win. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
