Re: Possible WM Documentation Project

Peter Dembinski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:08:40PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote:
> 
>>Peter Dembinski wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:28:01PM -0500, cga wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Russ Button wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>One of the things I'd like to see are docs relating to all the weird 
>>>>>little control files
>>>>>and such.  
>>>>
>>>>Are there any plans to convert these to an xml-based format?
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't make any comparisons, but IMO XML parsers are bigger and slower
>>>than libproplist.  Moreover, proplists seem to be good enough for storing 
>>>configuration info.  Why to change the piece of software that does its work
>>>and does it well?  Because XML is trendy at the moment?
>>
>>I agree that XML is absolutely over-used in so many situations. 
> 
> 
> I should have read the previous post more carefully.  All my divagations
> were about switching from proplist format to XML-based format 
> of configuration files.  

Perhaps /I/ am the one who misunderstood the previous post, because I 
thought it was about *documentation*. Was I incorrect?
> 
> 
>>That said, if you think XML is a "trendy fad" that is going to simply go 
>>away, you're delusional. 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe.  But, as you wrote before, many people use it inappriopriately.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it has its uses. If we're talking about 
configuration files, I think plists are excellent. XML is not very 
human-readable in comparison, but AFAIR, this discussion was not about 
configuration files, it was about documentation.

> 
> 
>>There are /good/ reasons for using XML. DocBook 
>>has become a good de-facto documentation standard, for which there are 
>>dozens of utilities to easily export to other formats such as XML and 
>>PDF. It's established. If anything, writing plist documentation seems a 
>>bit laughable to me, because it's so amazingly nonstandard. Who else do 
>>you know who uses XML plist docs? Heh.
> 
> 
> Yes, DocBook is good for technical documentation.  PropLists are not meant 
> to be used in documentation.  Why do you think anyone would like to document 
> anything using PropLists?

I don't. :) It seems so amazingly retarded, and since we were talking on 
two different subjects, now it's kind of funny.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>>If the WM authors wanted to improve WM desktop interoperability, they'd 
>>actually apply my trivial patches instead of ignoring them every time I 
>>resend them to wm-dev. 
> 
> 
> Maybe they don't like you and your code :>

I can almost guarantee it's the former, but not the latter. My patches 
are trivial (most are simple path handling patches. because WindowMaker 
currently hard-codes $HOME/GNUstep, but when you use it with GNUstep, 
GNUstep allows you to set $GNUSTEP_USER_ROOT to anything you want (I 
have it set to ~).  However, I highly suspect that several of the core 
WM folks are terminally pissed at me, because of some things I have done 
in the past, and while I have no personal problems with them, I believe 
they can't get over their own personal hang-ups and be objective, even 
if just for the five minutes it would take them to review my patch and 
actually apply it.

> 
>>They've clearly demonstrated on more than one occasion that they can't 
>>be bothered, which is a shame, because I would like to continue to 
>>improve WMaker's desktop interoperability, but I can't be bothered 
>>to make new patches for other problems when the first one I ever made 
>>was blatantly and repeatedly ignored. 
> 
> 
> Where these patches can be found?

In the mailing list archives. Search for my name. I've posted them more 
than once, because they were completely ignored.

> 
> 
>>That's no way to encourage community involvement. 
> 
> 
> Well, in some of open source projects, there is a situation, where 
> the original creator makes the most important decisions without consulting
> them with the community (compare Python, Linux kernel, GNU emacs etc.)
> 
> IMO you should rather try to convince Alfredo about usefulness of your 
> patch instead of just revealing your frustration on this mailing list.
> heh, what do _you_ make to encourage community to test WM?

Well, it's not useful to alfredo or dan because they don't use GNUstep. 
This is where the problems come into play, because as far as my 
perception goes, since they don't personally care, they couldn't give a 
damn. I wish it weren't so, but actions speak louder than words.

> 
>>There's a need for people/reviewers with CVS commit access who don't 
>>disappear for 11 months out of every year.
> 
> 
> Well, I disappeared from WM .po-files translation work for nearly 5 years, 
> hoping that someone will take over my work and continue it.  Unfortunately,
> noone appeared to be eager to continue my translation work, so it seems that
> I have to do by myself.  I believe this is very common story in free software 
> development.

Don't hold out any hopes to ever get it committed ;-)

Cheers,
Alex Perez

_______________________________________________
INFO: https://windowmaker.org/lists/listinfo/wm-user
ARCHIVE: https://windowmaker.org/lists/archive/wm-user/
FAQ: http://windowmaker.org/faq.html