On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Yes and I am convinced that not enough effort was taken to address the
>> concerns expressed. This is probably lost opportunity already but one
>> could strive to do better on future specs.
>
> So you think the KDE developers should have renamed those D-Bus methods and
> signals, requiring all their code to change, and also making new KDE
> applications incompatible with old KDE Plasma workspaces and the other way
> round, just because the GNOME developers did not like the names? To me, this
> sounds like attempting to rename "Referer" to the correct "Referrer" in the
> HTTP spec; there's a reason this has never happened! ("Referer" came to be
> because the British inventor of HTTP thought that that was the correct
> American English spelling, when in fact it is just wrong everywhere.)
>
> What is the lesser evil:
> * that a handful toolkit and shell developers have to cope with historical,
> slightly suboptimal names, whose meaning is well-documented in the spec, and
> that are not visible to end users nor to application developers at all, OR
> * a major compatibility break in both KDE Plasma and Unity to accomodate
> those cosmetic name changes?
>
> Why are people surprised at all that the KDE developers rejected the
> proposed changes???
You make it sound like Dan's review only talks about names. But that's
not the case.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
