- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:26:07 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: Tools dev list <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Hi, On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:39, olivier Thereaux wrote: > On Dec 7, 2007, at 20:42 , Henri Sivonen wrote: >> I considered it very briefly and figured that by downloading from >> the original distribution sites I don't need to consider what legal >> or maintenance obligations I'd have if I distributed the third- >> party code myself. For example, I don't need to find out which >> packages would require me to find complete corresponding source >> code and distributing that, too. > > That's a good point, and as I mentioned, I find the installation > technique really fascinating. I am, however, trying to figure out > how I ended up with a 440MB dependencies directory, if as you say it > only downloads a fifth of that through the network. heavy unzipping? Yes. Some of the archives contain sources or javadocs, which means that unzipping expands them a lot. > Asking for a note about modification is OK for human-readable > documents, but what about machine-readable schemas, for instance? It's already the W3C practice to allow modifications of schemas--with notices that that modified copies are in fact modified copies. I've mentioned modifications in both schema source and in documentation. Requiring sources to carry a detailed change log is inconvenient, but a one-time notice that the file isn't the official upstream file works pretty well; there's freedom but no misrepresentation of upstream. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 12:26:22 UTC