On September 7, 2009, you wrote: > On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 16:53 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > i also don't see the necessity for more character variety in property > > names than in signals, methods or other identifiers in a D-Bus service. > > what's the use case, exactly, beyond preserving existing malformed > > services? > > They are not malformed. They are perfectly conforming to the current > spec.
sorry, i meant "preserve existing services that would be malformed"? (i just flew in last night from 9 timezones to the right; language begins to elude me for a day or two after doing that) > You are trying to push a deficiency of your dbus implementation in > the spec... technically it's not mine: it's the DBus implementation we use. and yes, we've talked with the upstream responsible for this implementation already. but more importantly than technicalities, you addressed precisely zero of the issues i raised in the original email. instead, you replied to my last paragraph, complaining about the verbage of it and then didn't even answer the question in it. can i ask you to try again and reply to the points i raised? > The DeviceKit properties should simply be fixed to conform to the naming > convention thats stated in the spec, and David said that he'd do so. that's great news! it does show we have conventions, however, that don't align with the spec. that's very odd and only confirms further in my mind that this is something that we really ought to document in the spec itself as part of the requirements for well formed names. -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
