Hi; Am Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:29:13 +0100 schrieb Philip Withnall <phi...@tecnocode.co.uk>: > On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 19:48 +0200, Christian Persch wrote: > > Am Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:08:36 +0200 > > schrieb Milan Bouchet-Valat <nalimi...@club.fr>: > > > If only one string was provided, it would be a pain to find what > > > a key is supposed to do without reading the full description. And > > > that's what makes the settings database more useful than a mere > > > addition of binary values (for example, if we want a « plumbing > > > tool » to tweak advanced settings, we need it to have short and > > > useful summaries). > > > > Makes sense. We should at least discourage schema writers from > > making the description just a reworded summary. > > > > Or, let's only have the one <description> string, and take the first > > line (paragraph?) of it as the "summary", and any extra text as > > detail that will only be displayed in a tooltip, 'detailed info' > > area, etc. > > > > Like we do for our git commit messages :) > > Isn't that somewhat betraying the idea of XML as a _structured_ > representation of data?
True. So I'd settle for the style Ryan proposes in the other reply, and telling schema writers that it's ok to omit <description> if it would end up just being a slightly reworded summary. (As is the case in many current gconf schemas.) Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list