Re: XDG Standard is not evil
On 2 December 2014 at 15:24, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> On 2 December 2014 at 11:49, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Having just waded through this thread,
>>
>> My sincere sympathies.
>>
>>> and then reading the standard itself,
>>
>> Based on what you are quoting - that's the Base Directory
>> Specification, which is part of the XDG Standards
>>
>>> I can only conclude that it may not be "evil" but it is a horribly
>>> written
>>> standard.
>>
>> Lacking in comprehensive detail specifications?
>>
>>> To start with, there's absolutely no context:
>>
>> "Base Directory Specification"
>>
>>> The introduction reads, simply "Various specifications specify files and
>>> file formats. This specification defines where these files should be
>>> looked
>>> for by defining one or more base directories relative to which files
>>> should
>>> be located."
>>>
>>> Nothing about where the standard applies,
"Base Directory Specification", logically, precedes the Introduction.
By doing so it frames the documents i.e. provides context.
>>> what kinds of files are being
>>> talked about,
>>
>> I believe the very next section entitled "Basics" provides an overview
>> that covers those items.
>> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/ar01s02.html
>
>
> No... it lists a collection of concepts, again, with no context.
Does it not mention files? Please try and interleave your responses
below the point you are replying to - this is not the Gish Gallop
mailing list.
>
> Somehow (from XDG)
> "The XDG Base Directory Specification is based on the following concepts:
>
> *
>
> There is a single base directory relative to which user-specific
> data files should be written. This directory is defined by the
> environment variable |$XDG_DATA_HOME|.
>
> * etc....."
>
> Is NOT context.
Nor did I say it was. I said, and the post remains unchanged - that
"Base Directory" is the context.
>
> In contrast to, to pick a non-random example, the Linux Standard Base
Which demonstrates only that you ignored, or are unable to understand
the following:-
<snipped>
>>
>>
>>> on what kinds of systems.
>>
>> Any system/application that chooses to adopt it. In terms of OS, it's
>> used on Linux, Mac (Apple?), and Windows.
>>
>>> Nothing about what the standard is to be used for.
>>
>> "a set of common interfaces for desktop environments"
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.gnome.org/action/show/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/XDGConfigFolders?action=show&redirect=GnomeGoals%2FXDGConfigFolders
>
>
> Wow.... a web page, buried way deep inside a specific project's web site,
> not referenced in the standard itself - does not a standard make. Maybe,
> just maybe a design document.
Is that a novel way of saying "Thanks Scott for doing my homework for me?"
>
>>
>>> Nothing about who maintains the standard,
>>
>> Waldo Bastian, Ryan Lortie, and Lennart Poettering are credited on the
>> page you referenced, anyone can contribute - simply join the mailing
>> lists, which is all development is done:-
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>
>
> Again, not a standard.
Do you not understand your own comment that I was replying to "Nothing
about who maintains the standard," - or are you being deliberately
obtuse, or perhaps, and I hope not - trolling?
>
>>
>>> the process by which it is
>>> maintained and updated,
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> where to find the latest version.
>>
>> I found them here:-
>> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/
>>
>> I don't know where you read your version.
>
>
> Again, not stated anywhere in the standard.
I neither said nor implied that it was - nor that it *should* be. I
was simply responding to your comment with a relevance. It's the basis
of effective communication. Do try it.
>>
>>
>>> No references.
>>>
>>>
>>> The lack of any of this, makes the rest of it essentially useless.
>>
>> If you expect a simple guide to the standard to include all of those
>> points - then you are correct.
>> Definitely agreed that what you've referenced is lacking in
>> comprehensive detail, especially the sort I'd expect to see in an ISO
>> standard. But then Freedesktop.org standards are not formal standards.
>> And unless you follow the mailing lists, and have followed the history
>> of X Desktop Group, it's very hard to understand.
>
>
> Hence, my point. It's somewhat pretentious to call it a standard,
I fear, for lack of a better metaphor - you are trying to make a fish
out of a hat.
I took the time to read and consider what I was replying to - it would
be polite if you could reciprocate.
The XDG Base Directory standard is a "defacto", "informal" standard.
> and by
> any measure of a well written, well coordinated standards document - it
> simply is horrendous.
>
>>
>
>
> And their documents can legitimately be considered both standards, and well
> written.
*Formal standards*
As is their purpose - something you seem prepared to put an inordinate
amount of effort into *not* recognizing (which the paragraph I quoted
above succinctly states), whilst adding considerable noise to the
signal.
>>
>>
>> Unlike these groups, freedesktop.org is just a "collaboration zone"
>> where ideas and code can be tossed around, and de facto specifications
>> encouraged.
>
>
> Which should not be referred to, or considered anything like a standard.
It is not, nor should it be. Anybody trying to do so - like those that
try hard to demonstrate that it's not what it claims not to be -
should be vigorously dissuaded for wasting precious time and adding to
the sum total of stupid. Please take that up with whoever misled you
to believe otherwise.
A *formal standard* and *defacto standard*, not surprisingly, are not
synonyms - though confusingly to the tl;dr crowd "pacifically",
"arguably", they are.
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
Yours in Debian solidarity
--
"Their stupidity does not amaze me, its when they're smart that amazes me. It's
baffling whenever you find someone who's smart — incredible. Soon you'll have
zoos for such things" ~ Frank Zappa
Reply to: