Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:02:19PM +0000, Chris Withers wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| >My original intention was to put the config file location in the
| >ZConfig schema, but that's *waaaay* too painful right now.
| What's the specific problem here? I find adding to ZConfig schemas
| pretty easy...
Yet you find ZCML declaring namespaces in ZCML files
annoying *wink*. Sometimes I don't understand you :)
+1 to that. I think Chris doesn't really believe in the Second Law of
Python (according to the prophet Peters).
No, Chris just doesn't like XML namespaces. You can still have
explicitness without XML namespaces.
I think I'm starting to grasp the XML division among Zope developers.
ZConfig schema definitions use a conventional style of XML with deeply
nested elements, text nodes, and no namespaces, while ZCML uses its own
style with minimal nesting, many attributes, and many namespaces. Many
of us have a strong preference for one style or the other and we're
perplexed that others would actually prefer their crazy style.
I remember that Jim once presented two XML samples and asked which one
was more readable. I preferred many elements over many attributes. He
preferred the opposite. I thought he was crazy, and as I recall, he
thought I was crazy, too. :-)
This division probably exists because there is no widely accepted "Zen
of XML". Perl and C/C++ programmers have a similar problem. From what
I can tell, open source Perl and C/C++ projects solve the problem by
either combining many styles, or by telling contributors they have to
mimic the style the existing code uses, regardless of how peculiar the
Eh... I guess every mailing list ends up battling over style concerns.
The least important issues lead to the biggest battles. After I throw
some quotes and colons at you, you can throw some angle brackets and
ambiguous whitespace at me, then we'll call a truce. :-)
Zope3-dev mailing list