[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data (Was: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)

Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Moreover I see no reason to bind anybody to a certain library like
>> markdown.
> It's perfectly ok to punt the specification of the format to an
> external library, at least initially. If enough people don't want to
> use the markdown libraries, they'll either code up patches to policy
> to codify the equivalent of markdown formatting in policy or write
> equivalent code to markdown.

  As shown before in the other thread, markdown does not work with
the current long description : it needs pre-processing to add some
blank lines before each list.
  So, I see Andreas proposition has a way to formalize what we want
to accept (that will allow most current long description to be good)
in order to be able to send them with a preprocessor to tools such
as markdown.

> It seems to me like the next step is to go ahead and make a few
> patches to packages.debian.org to change to a markdown (or equivalent)
> formatting of the long description with whatever pre-processing is
> necessary, see how well it works, submit a patch to policy to codify,
> and move on with filing bugs for those bits that don't work properly.

  No current tools¹ works with current long descriptions.

  If we add some preprocessor, I think we will hit the reason why, for
example, markdown requires this additional blank line. This means that
we will not support all what markdown support. It is not a problem but
it means that markdown specifications can not be used "as it".


¹: at least, I did not notice one in this discussion

Vincent Danjean       GPG key ID 0x9D025E87         vdanjean@debian.org
GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A  8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87
Unofficial pacakges: http://moais.imag.fr/membres/vincent.danjean/deb.html
APT repo:  deb http://perso.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main

Reply to: