Re: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> 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.

Ok, after such a wording I'll finally say the truth - I am a bad person.

> New projects still would have to deal with editing highly ugly files.

That is my goal in life.

> 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.

No new maintainership for you -- my intention.

> > 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.

In my evil plan I really should rather use:
MaintainerId1: etc
MaintainerName1: etc
Descriptionnl:
Descriptionde:


> > 
> > 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?

Indeed, I didn't mean anything else, especially after saying "Yes, XML
is harder"


I am sorry -- I cannot take responses such as this seriously.

-- 
Regards,
Olav