Re: Getting descriptions for cgit

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 18:24 +0100, Claude Paroz wrote:
> Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 17:44 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> > Le vendredi 20 mars 2009, à 11:27 -0500, Shaun McCance a écrit :
> > > I wonder if we could define some sort of non-RDF project
> > > info file format that people actually wouldn't mind using.
> > > Something flexible and well-defined enough to provide more
> > > information that could be picked up by Pulse, but still
> > > plain-text enough that humans would write and read it.
> > 
> > We certainly could. Something like:

[...]

> > 
> > And it's certainly not hard to write a script do convert this to DOAP if
> > we want.
> > 
> > Now, does it make sense to have such a format? I don't know :-)
> 
> Why always reinvent the wheel :-(
> Despite his verbosity, DOAP is standard, there are tools to parse it, it
> can be used by other GNOME infrastructure apps, etc.
> Is it such a big deal for programmers to read/produce XML syntax?

Seriously, I don't care.  I can parse DOAP files, and I
can parse anything else that isn't complete garbage.

Go read the desktop-devel-list archives from January 2008.
Then get back to me on whether you want to try to convince
our developers to maintain DOAP files.  It's not a battle
I feel like fighting.

I've long since given up on using RDF as a source format.
It's an interchange format.  Produce your data in a way
that's conducive to content producers.  Write tools to
massage that data into a format that's conducive to
interchange.  Win.

--
Shaun