Re: [QSOS-general] ideas QSOS v2 format

[PELISSE Romain]

The list seems to be a good idea and is backward compatible.

However, as Mylene, i doesn't like the a,b,c system because of the backward 
compatibility problem. Anyway, it doesn't really fixes the problme... (people 
will still believes that 'a' means bad and 'c' means 'good').

I rather used something as -1 for this... This way we'll a lot less trouble 
making old tools compliant to QSOS 2.0 and we'll avoir any kind of confusion ( 
It'll be quite hard to believe -1 is rating, anyway we can use a another score 
like -666 :) ).

>From my point view, we should then add a visual features ( maybe icon) on 
>tools like JQeditor and QtEditor to mark that the features is not 
>implemented...

Last point : there is still a problem with those kind of "missing features", 
who to compare products with missing features ? 


========================================
 Date du message : nov. 12 2006, 07:40 PM
 De : "Gonéri Le Bouder" <address@hidden>
 A : address@hidden
 Copie : 
 Sujet : [QSOS-general] ideas QSOS v2 format
 
 Hi folks,
 
 
 Today we have (at last) two know issues with the current XML format of QSOS.
 1) The scoring style: Today we use in general 0 for a missing feature 
 and 2 for a well implemented feature. A lot of people thinks that ZERO 
 means "bad" and "2" means "good".
 2) The list: There is no easy way to store a list in a QSOS sheet.
 
 My suggestions:
 For the scoring issue:
 
 Today an element is stored like this:
 <element name="books" title="books">
    <desc0>No book about the software</desc0>
    <desc1>Less than 5 books about the software are available</desc1>
    <desc2>More than 5 books about software are available, in several 
 languages</desc2>
    <score>0</score>
    <comment></comment>
 </element>
 
 I suggest this:
 <element name="books" title="books">
    <desc score="a">No book about the software</desc>
    <desc score="b">Less than 5 books about the software are available</desc>
    <desc score="c">More than 5 books about software are available, in 
 several languages</desc>
    <score>a</score>
    <comment></comment>
 </element>
 0, 1 and 2 scores are replaced by letters.
 
 For the list:
 Today a list is stored like this:
 
 
 <element name="packaging" title="Packaging">
   <desc>Packaging for various operating systems</desc>
   <element name="packagingsource" title="Source">
     <desc0>Software can't be installed from source without lot of 
 work</desc0>
     <desc1>Installation from source is limited and depends on very 
 strict conditions (OS, arch, lib, ...)</desc1>
     <desc2>Installation from source is easy</desc2>
     <score></score>
     <comment></comment>
   </element>
   <element name="packagingdebian" title="Debian">
      <desc0>The software is not packaged for Debian</desc0>
      <desc1>A Debian package exists but it has important issues or it 
 doesn't have official support</desc1>
      <desc2>The software is packaged in the distribution</desc2>
      <score></score>
      <comment></comment>
    </element>
 (...)
 </element>
 
 I suggest this:
 
 <element name="packaging" title="Packaging" type="list">
   <desc>Packaging for various operating systems</desc>
   <desc score="a">Not a working installation medium</desc>
   <desc score="b">Workins installation medium but strict dependency (OS, 
 arch, lib, ...)</desc>
   <desc score="c">Maintained and supported by official of 3rd team</desc>
   <item name="packagingsource" title="from Source">
     <desc>Installation from source tarball</desc>
     <score>b</score>
     <comment>Installation from source is easy but only with GCC 
 3.0</comment>
   </item>
   <item name="packagingsource" title="Debian package">
     <score>c</score>
     <comment>Debian provide an official package</comment>
   </item>
 (...)
 </element>
 
 Comments are welcome :).
 
 Regards,
 
                   Gonéri
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 qsos-general mailing list
 address@hidden
 http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qsos-general