Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data
On Mon, Apr 20 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
> as promissed in the overlongish thread  I would like to
> sort out the details how we should enhance the consistency and
> parseability of our long descriptions in a poll. I agree that
> it is not a good idea to solve technical issues in a poll.
> But this is not about a technical issue. There is a fact that
> we need a defined structure (technical issue 1) to be able
> to parse the long descriptions (whatever library or self invented
> code will be used - technical issue 2). But the details how
> the structure should look like is more or less an aesthetical
> question (because several tools print the long descriptions
> in verbose mode) and so the question is about this aesthetics.
> If you want to discuss the technical issues please read all mails
> of the thread and continue discussing this (preferably with a
> new subject).
> Here is the URL of the poll:
Frankly, a poll about micromanaging marks for each level of
unordered list does seem to be technical. It is also an implementation
detail, and invents our own convention, and options 1 & 2 would cause
many more packages to be changed than would just adopting markdown or
ReST. The fact that we need more packages changed for options 1 & 2
makes them technically inferior.
Is there anyone other than yourself who is actually unhappy
And should we have similar silly polls (which I have no
intention of promoting by voting in them) for emhpasis? for specifying
bold/italic text? For ordered lists? for a myriad of other useful
markup already familiar to people who know markdown and ReST?
Also, given that there are more output formats than html
available for markdown/ReST is another plus point; we might want other
output formats for Descriptions than plain ol' html.
Once the erosion of power begins, it has a momentum all its own.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C