Re: Debian Metadata Proposal -- draft rev.1.4
On Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 01:49:06PM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Marco.Budde@hqsys.antar.com (Marco Budde) writes:
> > APH> Currently, the domain of allowable values is
> > APH>
> > APH> * howto
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > I don#t understand that. We don#t need that, because for this purpose we
> > have got the section tag.
>
> Not as I read the DDH. Anyhow, it's an optional field.
I think this is a good idea. This seperates the orthogonal criteria for
document types, but adresses concerns of Marco that documents should be
accessible via the type.
So, a nice frontend could display the DDH or, alternatively, the Types:.
> > APH> Title
> > APH> LANG
> > APH> can set
> >
> > Not necessary, the title should be in the language of the document.
>
> !! Duh! That's a good point! I guess you're right that there's no
> point on translating the title of an english document into German, is
> there?
I think it is a very good idea to translate the title of a document.
It is done so everytime (and translating titles of computer related
documents isn't a big deal).
> If I recall, you would prefer to have docreg files in the
> documentation area, i.e., /usr/doc/<pkg>. I am amenable to this,
> actually, but if you're going to be reading docreg files directly, I
> think this is going to be evil.
The docreg file isn't documentation, therefore it has nothing to do in
/usr/doc. They shouldn't appear there, and I *hate* dot files elsewhere than
in my home directory, where I don't know about them.
> > APH> is not enforced; however, these file names must be globally unique
> > APH> across all packages.
> >
> > Right and this is one problem with this solution. What#s your problem with
> > my solution: docreg in /usr/doc/<foo>?
>
> Like I said:
> (a) I don't really care that much
> (b) any scheme *must* allow us to serve documents off other servers,
> i.e., debian DDP web area
> (c) all identifiers for documents *should* allow us to transition to a
> URN scheme very easily, if not use that from the get-go
I would add:
(d) It would be a dot file then, and I hate dot files.
(e) It is not documentation.
> If you can restate your entire scheme for 'Identifier' and for docreg
> file placement, and show how that addresses points (b) and (c), I will
> adopt it.
> > I#m missing the tags for adding new sections and their description.
>
> Yes, that's not part of the docreg spec per se. The DDH is a "SCHEME"
> for our subject tree. (Other schemes, i.e., dewey decimal system, we
> do not use).
>
> Marco is working on this. I'll probably help him with the definition
^^^^^
You mean "Marcus" here, don't you?
> of the file format. It's pretty straight forward, it's not in a
> standard format because there *are* no such standards AFAIK, and it
> hasn't changed much.
Maybe we can adopt some ideas from the docreg format (Adam, what about
"Date" instead "Update" and other renamings?).
Going to the next message,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: