[PATCH] XML Policy

[Frans Englich]

On Tuesday 22 February 2005 21:16, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 February 2005 22:06, Frans Englich wrote:
> > You tell me. Should we skip having a consistent C++ API? No?
>
> You keep saying this as if we have have a specification for C++ APIs in
> KDE. We don't.  We merely have some conventions and a few limitations that
> are imposed by the tools.

And those conventions are strong; just as strong as if it was written in a 
policy. I refer to it as a policy because it's clear how a generic class 
would be designed, without getting flamed to the floor at commit time. In 
other words, I am confident it would be possible to write a policy with the 
word "should" that starts with Enums, continues via get/setters, and ends 
with class names, that everyone would say, "Yes, that's what we do 99.9% of 
the time."

By the way, we have no specifications at all, we have policies. Just because 
you write something down doesn't mean it becomes a law. For example, I 
reference RFC 2119 to make things clear. It doesn't affect the content, it 
affects how it's said. For example, the word "should" gets a very clear 
meaning, and it becomes obvious that what it applies for is only a 
recommendation, a suggestion of practice.


Cheers,

		Frans