-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:29:45 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Flat files can be great in certain situations. Flat files do indeed > | make the parsing trivial. However SIMPLE CODE ISN'T ALWAYS THE MOST > | IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT. In the case of this GLEP, the most important > | requirement is getting the proper migration info to the users in the > | best possible way. > > Read the list of requirements in the GLEP. The plain text solution > meets all of them. XML fails on several.
If readability isn't a requirement, your list is wrong. > And, incidentally, I came up with the requirements list *before* > dismissing XML. Given your past public statement about XML; I highly doubt that. Whether you were concious of it or not, I suspect that XML bashing was always in the mix. > | So what are the trade-offs of the 'flat file'? If you store a > | migration guide as a 'flat file', its not going to be very readable. > > Who said anything about storing a migration guide as a flat file? Read > the GLEP. No, *you* need to read my previous response. I was using 'flat file' to mean whatever it is you're calling your less-than-GuideXML scheme. > | GuideXML is the standard for Gentoo docs for some damn good reasons! > > No, it's the standard because Daniel said so. And the reasons behind > which web publishing setup we use have little relation to good reasons > for a news delivery system. > > Why do you think we still send email in plain text? Why do you think news is sent as an RSS feed? Answer: Because it has proven to be the best way! > *shrug* Anyway, if you want to come up with an alternate GLEP based > around XML, bittorrent, Java and CORBA, go right ahead. I never mentioned bittorrent, Java, or CORBA. If you don't have a valid arguement, please don't try to distract everyone by putting words into the mouths of those you're arguing with. > The GLEP system > is quite happy with handling multiple competing proposals for a given > topic, and at the end of it we can select the best proposal, reject all > the proposals or go and come up with a new proposal with bits from > both. So if you didn't want people to actually review and comment on *your* GLEP, why did you write: "The attached GLEP is a draft proposal for the emerge --news thing that's been under discussion. There are still some TODO items. These are calls for people to weigh in with suggestions. Of course, suggestions on other items are good too..." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDarNC2QTTR4CNEQARAkvgAJ91X9MQyPVLE20VPYhAVq5O36jV3gCeI/nY swzdhW0+/C84vVN9UQ8aes4= =DiXn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
