| 1 |
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:37:30 +0100 |
| 2 |
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Therefore, I've been slowly writing a proper GLEP that would describe |
| 6 |
> > all of metadata.xml in detail. Here's the current draft for review: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Sounds like a good idea! |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:68 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I reviewed your spec based on my experience from trying to create a |
| 13 |
> RELAX NG schema for all metadata.xml files that were in the tree at |
| 14 |
> the time. I assume you've also validated your spec against what's |
| 15 |
> actually being used? I have a few questions: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Small update here: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> - I had the upstream maintainer's email element pegged as mandatory. |
| 20 |
> Don't you think that makes sense? A name-only maintainer element seems |
| 21 |
> relatively low-value to me. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I've re-read the spec today and confirmed this with one of the authors. |
| 24 |
For upstream, name is mandatory, e-mail is not. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> - You list a number of the upstream child elements (changelog, doc, |
| 27 |
> bug-to) as "zero or more". Doesn't it make sense to make (some of) |
| 28 |
> these zero or one? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
dev-zero explained this to me. The original intent was that each of |
| 31 |
those elements could be used at most once, however DTD limitations |
| 32 |
prevented this from happening. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
After thinking some, I've figured out how to force 'at most one' with |
| 35 |
XML Schema without losing readability, and I'll update the spec to |
| 36 |
conform to the original meaning. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
| 41 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives