On 2009-12-02 11:43 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
While more structured meta-data is generally better than less,
I wonder why we have to add URLs for all these things.
The home page of a project will usually provide the URLs
in some form already and if there is no home page, the
long description can be used.
A valid argument for the duplication would be to provide the user
with faster and more standardized access to those resources.
OTOH, they don't really mean anything for computerized consumption.
I believe it was my comment in the PyPI comments thread on python-dev that
inspired this idea. I suggested the Repository-Browse-URL as a way for PyPI
users to very quickly (with one click) view the source code of the project in
order to evaluate it quickly. Personally, I get a much better idea of the
suitability of a project from a quick browse of the code than short comments and
ratings. Having it as a separate item in the official metadata encourages
authors to make it available and allows PyPI to put it in a standard place that
PyPI users can navigate to quickly.
The Bug-Tracker-URL was not in my suggestion, but the logic supporting it is
somewhat similar. Some authors want to make sure that bug reports that might
otherwise incorrectly go in the PyPI comments go to the specified bug tracker
instead.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
