4 Jan
2003
4 Jan
'03
7:53 p.m.
04/01/03 19:07, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 02:51:13 +0100, Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
It's not an ugly hack. It doesn't break anything and it doesn't get in
the way of anything, it doesn't prevent anything and it doesn't
require anything. It's a good hack.
I understand why you find it ugly, but it really isn't that bad. With
my suggestion, the ugliness is conceptual: we're overloading the
meaning of a field. This causes some heartache but little else. By
requiring RDF the ugliness comes in the guise of extra complexity and
the fact that we're dropping support for non-RDF hosts. That's like
trimming your nails by chopping off a finger.
I fully support the need for metadata a la RDF, but RDF is orthogonal
to what I'm suggesting. There simply is no benefit to enumerating
values using RDF versus enumerating them in the PortName.
Pascal.
My proposal loses us nothing: because plugin
authors need to use the
PortName field to describe port values _anyway_ (to aid non
RDF-capable hosts) it makes sense to agree on a best way to do it.
I disagree, its an ugly hack, and I didn't want to do it in the first
place, there just wasn't much choice originally, and I got into the habit.
People using eg. command line hosts could read the docs.