On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:43:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Looking at the bug report, I can agree that there is a rough > consensusabout using a "standard" text-based markup language to > interpret package long descriptions. What is unclear, though, which of > the two equivalent languages (Markdown or ReStructured Text) are being > proposed here -- either one of these would be acceptable, and there are > working implementations of either that seem to do a very creditable job. > We need to pick one or the other (and at this point, I am > agnostic to whatever is picked, since either is a standard that is > popular and is not a NIH spec) -- and I do not see anything claer about > which one policy should support. > We could, as an example, go by pop-con results for the > interpreters -- that is one defensible means of selecting the language, > I guess. My main concern with this request is that by blessing the use of a text-based markup language for lists, we not end up in a situation where maintainers are using more extensive markup that makes the package descriptions less legible as plain text. As long as the policy language is precise in limiting this to list formatting, I agree that both of the options should do the job fine. And I think even flipping a coin would be a defensible means of selecting, in this case. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature