Re: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file

Am Freitag, den 18.01.2008, 15:57 -0200 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
> I can see that xml might be a little less beautiful to the eye, and
> also
> that text files might be a little less beautiful to a machine who has
> to parse some custom format that might be subject to change, the
> great 
> thing about xml is that is very easy to read for a computer and
> for a human. 

Yes, that's how XML was designed, and this promise works pretty well for
XHTML and many other XML based language - but producing a XML based
language thats human and machine friendly needs some attention. The DOAP
examples I've seen so far do not show the slightest evidence, that DOAP
was designed for humans. Most parts of a DOAP file just is RDF and
namespace boilerplate. Who should remember all that crap? Well, of
course a template file could be used for all that boilerplate stuff.
Well, unfortunately the need for using template files, is a very good
sign for poor language design - IMHO.

> Also agree with Murray that having a sophisticated centralized
> database would confuse and complicate things in gnome, it's somehow
> reassuring to me that every project has all of its important
> information in its separate tarballs and revision history.

Yes, that central database part of Olav's proposal is a part I failed to
understand. Motivation seems less annoyance due commit hooks. Just
another reason to use some easy to understand text format, instead of
DOAP which seems error prone with all that long namespaces and long
attribute names.

Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de>
Openismus GmbH:
Personal Site:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]