| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Justin Lecher (jlec) <jlec@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Can we get an agreement on how we are indenting metadata.xml? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I like to properly format and indent metadata.xml, but without having |
| 12 |
> an agreement or policy on the indention, I make unhappy by choosing |
| 13 |
> the wrong. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I was going to stay out of this, but I want to kind of circle back a bit. |
| 17 |
You want to 'properly format' the documents. I guess part of my question |
| 18 |
is, what would you do if the proper format was basically undefined? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"Properly formatted" XML files isn't really what I consider a goal. Do you |
| 21 |
have other goals? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For instance: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
"I would like to standardize on spaces or tabs so that we can better |
| 26 |
automate the tooling around metadata." |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Or perhaps more clearly: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"I am writing tools that manipulate metadata.xml; while I can easily ingest |
| 31 |
metadata.xml, producing the correct output is difficult when spaces or tabs |
| 32 |
are mixed, can we consistently use one or the other?" |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Or another take: |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
"I am trying to write a tool that manipulates metadata.xml and I am having |
| 37 |
difficulty parsing entries that mix spaces and tabs, please help me." |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Some of these problems are solved by code (I'm pretty sure the latter |
| 40 |
problem just requires a sane XML parser for instance.) I believe mgorny |
| 41 |
already provided code that tried to solve problem 2. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Problem 1 is sufficiently generic that it is hard to solve with a code |
| 44 |
snippet I think. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
The point is these are all goals other than "I want to standardize on tabs |
| 47 |
or spaces because I like starting tabs vs spaces flamewars on gentoo-dev." |
| 48 |
This is not meant to be accusatory; merely that standardizing the format |
| 49 |
"because" doesn't really solve anything (there is no problem statement.) |
| 50 |
Perhaps there is an implied statement (consistency is generally better for |
| 51 |
all parties.) But even that being clearly stated would be nice. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-A |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> The two options which are already suggested are |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> * 2 spaces |
| 60 |
> * single tab |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> So what should it be? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
> Jusitn |
| 66 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 67 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0 |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVcqCPXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w |
| 70 |
> ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ0QUU0N0I4NzFERUI0MTJFN0EyODE0NUFF |
| 71 |
> OTQwMkE3OUIwMzUyOUEyAAoJEOlAKnmwNSmivxIP/3Vdv8fLVThtEdjknncX8txq |
| 72 |
> DSEj1m+pEqVw53noSQscbvjRkiAiGg50xtZFC5zcJVC7cRSIAADGUByakt7w+Lmk |
| 73 |
> D2cHWfQLJr5ZqGMholHdHJC7G7PXDJZ4D90Rt8qL7I1aGjMzWtGXzkzx2+OD+j8F |
| 74 |
> jy8XAa2I30/Rgof+fsUp1mgglv5c4Y94CbJcnkbERuyxA5miB2d1E3i3iiIcoLmB |
| 75 |
> M2fs0DN3oOQT8Fhwp2fJhoRH+aXlayC8o5PbBEKc6xGU5nfvtfvqqGHa9eoqLgXv |
| 76 |
> vpZXIwKm9vujXoPi7DDBMKAPPqDD1OSKBV0fvbwx0Q94H7XzmSmtFW45gPdAyrF2 |
| 77 |
> rwL3dlLcswDsblv46LHmj+m3/VFJagSccrKaH/I4uf4z2+RhjwNO2R+Z66/EYH3n |
| 78 |
> hvoYWQTx0Y+YI2kKKpXymK5e9ZgO7x+dxBHwLpa13JcJP0sMESQbN4jmJ5Rob0xV |
| 79 |
> bqtTsn+/O/rB1iMMC2V1fq3cQT9AQZT3OKnyiXM6nwLDgae30cY4gCUkOqc/ULxp |
| 80 |
> Eakb5D82HlSWIo840BXNAoGOWI7vFrtaKndDukWn+kKk1SeKm3j2ocwzQ7Rzxsa8 |
| 81 |
> 60hfE2tsuo0wQBLxslxYyZnv/kPBS9PS8RtZrLpS5V6D4BGS/32zuBVhN1eP9dQ0 |
| 82 |
> dz0kj1uvehcz5/Dhgms4 |
| 83 |
> =e7QN |
| 84 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 85 |
> |
| 86 |
> |
Archives