On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Daniel Burrows wrote:
For the sorts of markup our
descriptions have now it'll be fine, but it's my experience that when
you give people a hammer they start hitting everything that's vaguely
nail-shaped with it. :-)
ROFL.
The whole time of discussion was well spent just
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:31:31AM +0200, Andreas Tille til...@rki.de was
heard to say:
Moreover I see no reason to bind anybody to a certain library
like markdown. My experience has shown that people will insist
on their very own way to do things. Do you think apt, aptitude,
synaptic etc.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:36:31PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
I've the impression that you didn't read my post, I might be wrong
though.
Do you read mine ?
Yes, but not the prev(prev(.)), sorry about that.
With that convention, you can use Markdown out of the box (on each
paragraph)
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 07:34:45AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Well, *if* something is *recommended* in the docs filing wishlist bugs
against packages that ignore the recommendation are fine. Why else
should we issue recommendations?
For people writing new long descriptions, first off. That
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
There's no point to defining rules without a working implementation,
because we don't know what the rules should be.
So I tried to do an implementation for the tasks pages of Blends which
works for unordered lists as discussed here and I also made
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:24:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Here is the URL of the poll:
http://doodle.com/2bp8rrh3i35sr4s7
Heya, thanks for the poll.
Nevertheless, I think I got a bit lost in the discussion.
Following it, I had the impression that there was a quasi-agreement on
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Nevertheless, I think I got a bit lost in the discussion.
Following it, I had the impression that there was a quasi-agreement on
Markdown. Hence, I'm wondering what is the exact purpose of your
poll. With Markdown, you have alternative markers for
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
I'm afraid that this leaves to much space for broken input as the
airport-utils example in the end of [1] shows. Manoj tried to prove
that markdown works perfectly - but it does not because the
indentantion of the original input is just wrong. I want
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
Moreover I see no reason to bind anybody to a certain library like
markdown.
It's perfectly ok to punt the specification of the format to an
external library, at least initially. If enough people don't want to
use the markdown
ti, 2009-04-21 kello 10:37 +0200, Vincent Danjean kirjoitti:
As shown before in the other thread, markdown does not work with
the current long description : it needs pre-processing to add some
blank lines before each list.
That's true. Because the Packages and debian/control files are in
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:37:00AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
As shown before in the other thread, markdown does not work with
the current long description : it needs pre-processing to add some
blank lines before each list.
I've the impression that you didn't read my post, I might be
ti, 2009-04-21 kello 12:00 +0200, Andreas Tille kirjoitti:
In principle this is fine as well. That's why my initial mail[1]
said This suggestion is far from complete and should be enhanced.
If there is a need to relax my strictly German habit to trimm
everything very tidy - people should have
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
So long as we have an implementation which works for the vast
majority of cases we can file bugs to make it work for the few
cases where it doesn't. (Or the output can just be slightly broken
in those cases;
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
There's no point to defining rules without a working implementation,
because we don't know what the rules should be. Once there is a
working implementation that works for a reasonable majority of the
descriptions, we can define rules based on the
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
So long as we have an implementation which works for the vast majority
of cases we can file bugs to make it work for the few cases where it
doesn't. (Or the output can just be slightly broken in those cases;
it's not like that's a huge problem.)
IMHO
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Properly here should mean anything that the markdown language says is
OK. The markdown language is remarkably relaxed about indentation. It
can handle it fine if one list is indented by two space, and other by
three. There seems to be no need for
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:08:24PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Very well: your tendency towards strict consistency needs to be
relaxed. :)
Thus as far as I can see there is a rough consensus and the following
should happen:
That's my reading as well. (Adding back -policy to the recipient
ti, 2009-04-21 kello 11:27 +0200, Andreas Tille kirjoitti:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Anticipating a potential objection: nested lists do work without
needing blank lines to separate nesting levels; I've just tried that
out.
... provided that lists are formated
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Anticipating a potential objection: nested lists do work without
needing blank lines to separate nesting levels; I've just tried that
out.
... provided that lists are formated properly in the first place (keyword:
broken spacings). That's why I
Hi,
On Dienstag, 21. April 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:
There is no point in implementing better markup for the Blends pages
if I know from the beginning that I will end up with broken pages
for an undetermined time.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:37:00AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
As shown before in the other thread, markdown does not work with
the current long description : it needs pre-processing to add some
blank lines before each list.
I've the impression that you didn't
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:36:14PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ti, 2009-04-21 kello 11:27 +0200, Andreas Tille kirjoitti:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Anticipating a potential objection: nested lists do work without
needing blank lines to separate nesting levels;
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
I for one like visual consistency even when reading package descriptions
via apt-cache etc.
It must be a boring German habit - I always felt this way myself. I
started some action when I noticed that my feeling turned out to
have technical advantages
Hi,
as promissed in the overlongish thread [1] I would like to
sort out the details how we should enhance the consistency and
parseability of our long descriptions in a poll. I agree that
it is not a good idea to solve technical issues in a poll.
But this is not about a technical issue. There
24 matches
Mail list logo
