Re: Bug#220779: ITP: zope-epoz -- Cross-browser-wysiwyg-editor for Zope
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 05:09:31PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 14:52, Raphael Goulais wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 November 2003 20:08, Joe Drew wrote:
> > > I'm getting a little sick of seeing homepages in long descriptions.
> > > Policy clearly says "Copyright statements and other administrivia should
> > > not be included either (that is what the copyright file is for)."
> > > (Section 3.4)
> > ... and the Debian Developer's Reference recommends him to do as
> > he has done.
> There is clearly a disconnect here, then. I believe Policy trumps the
> developer's reference, but that's not to say that policy can't be
> changed (and the same for the developer's reference).
The only disconnect I see is your a priori assumption that a URL
qualifies as "administrivia. (I assume you're not claiming that it's
a copyright statement.) I think that most of us consider it to be
useful and interesting information, neither purely adminstrative, NOR
necessarily trivial, and, as such, perfectly reasonable to include in
a long description.
The whole argument is somewhat fuzzy, of course, since "administrivia"
isn't a real word, therefore, arguing what it "really" means is rather
subjective. But I still think that the vast majority of us would
disagree with a claim that a package homepage URL is merely
"administrivia" in any case.
Now, I suppose it could be argued that if a home page for a package
doesn't contain any useful information about that package (unlikely
but possible), then the URL *would* qualify as "adminstrivia", but I
think you'd have to show that the home page is useless before making
such a claim, and such arguments would have to be done on a
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
email@example.com | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or firstname.lastname@example.org | volcaniconi- standalone haiku