From kde-edu-devel  Thu May 30 21:48:49 2002
From: Scott Wheeler <wheeler () kde ! org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:48:49 +0000
To: kde-edu-devel
Subject: Re: [kde-edu-devel] And so it begins (libkdeedu)
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-edu-devel&m=102279564526728

On Thursday 30 May 2002 08:10 pm, Klas Kalass wrote:

> I am not sure if it is a good idea to try and support too many applicatio=
ns=20
> with this. XML is the one generic format and QDom is pretty easy to use. =
I=20
> support the idea to standardize on a format for vocabulary data and make =
a=20
> lib out of it, but I see no need to make it generic.

=46irst, certainly noone will be forced to use this lib or the standard for=
mats. =20
If you don't think it's right for your application, don't use it.

=46or vocabulary based applications I think the benefits are pretty clear. =
 Your=20
input here and others will be what help decide if a more general makup for=
=20
KDE Edu data is useful.  If there is a pattern that seems to fit a lot of=20
different applications, we can make things easier for people that want to u=
se=20
it.  If that data can't be generalized in any type of useful way, then we=20
shouldn't spend the time trying to do this.

I'll put up an example.  HTML has many uses and is used in a lot of KDE app=
s. =20
Every application that uses HTML could implement an HTML parser.  But they=
=20
don't because it's silly to write 30 HTML parsers.  If there is a useful wa=
y=20
of generalizing educational data in a similar fashion that it is possible t=
o=20
generalize hypertext markup, then it should be done.  I'm not convinced tha=
t=20
this is useful and that's why all of the input right now is good.

> I also support having KEduVoc as a prefix for those parts that are specif=
ic=20
> to=20
> vocabulary applications.

Ok, again all of this is quite useful!  Thanks Klas!

=2DScott
_______________________________________________
kde-edu-devel mailing list
kde-edu-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-edu-devel