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
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,
"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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org