Am Samstag, den 19.01.2008, 01:28 +0100 schrieb Olav Vitters: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 07:40:00PM +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > > > 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. > > You plan on changing that stuff every second or so?!? IMO after the > standard DOAP files have been generated, it should be ok to be edited. > I'll probably ask e.g. GHOP to fill in any missing detail anyway. So you have a solution for existing projects - although I question the morality of abusing GHOP students for filling out that binary junk. New projects still would have to deal with editing highly ugly files. I agree, that DOAP has a purpose, and those who want to use it, shall use it. Nevertheless DOAP is a highly ugly format, and I see no rationale in suggesting and even enforcing usage of a highly ugly file format. > You say that e.g. MAINTAINERS is easy. Well, my parser script doesn't > agree. > > I don't see what is hard about: > shortdesc>Java-based build tool</shortdesc> Would be nice, if DOAP would be that simple. But in reality DOAP requires usage of very long XML namespaces, and usages of very strange attribute names. Yes, I know - they are defined by RDF - but this doesn't make them less strange. > > vs: > shortdesc: Java-based build tool > > > Both have to be thoroughly checked for syntax, as maintainers will get > them wrong, often. Yes, XML is harder, that is why there should be > examples. It isn't that hard. Further, usually it is only a one-time > exercise. So you seriously suggest, that switching to a more complicated format will cause less problems? Sorry, but were are the cameras? > > > > 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. > > Lots of people don't even get the MAINTAINERS syntax right. I don't > believe anything will work without strict enforcement (the MAINTAINERS > syntax check is *really* simple). IMO it is like autotools. Almost > nobody understands it and just copies some existing file. Which works > just fine. -- Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de> http://taschenorakel.de/mathias/about/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil