"Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> writes:

> That being said I still don't see the usefulness here.
>
> You seem to think that using the existing APIs for this data is wrong,
> and I think the opposite, so I guess we will agree to disagree on this
> matter.

Yeah I still think that there is no point in requiring using of a
specific API when the same data can easily be available in a format that
is more or less parsable with ease in any modern (and non) programming
language.

Beside, I find expanding the HOMEPAGE syntax to allow more than one link
a bit ... overkill, if the same thing can be achieved in metadata.xml...

>> Beside, if you really want to go down that road you should be counting
>> that beside ReiserFS with tail, I don't remember any other Linux FS that
>> has block smaller than 512bytes, which means that each file in metadata
>> cache is taking up much more than just its size in characters.
>>
>> All your math is thus wrong.
>
> As was pointed out on IRC, UTF8 characters are not a fixed size,
> making my math even more wrong ;)

If we consider HOMEPAGE, the assumption that characters are fixed size
to 1 byte is good enough; URLs are usually encoded in pure ascii
character space for compatibility; while IDN would break that
assumption, we can't even assume that IDN is always available and so on.

For description maybe it's different because there is space there for
UTF-8 characters, but that's going to bring us even farthest than the
point.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/