[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_lxml

[Philip Brown]

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote on 01.03.2010 21:33:
...
>> How about this:
>>
>>
>> NAME=py_lxml - libxml2 binding with cleaner python syntax than py_libxml2
>
> I see your point in helping the user to sort out what exactly py_lxml
> might be for when there is already py_libxml2.
>
> The problem I am having with this wording is that it puts a comparative,
> negative verdict upon py_libxml2. I would rather have the user make his
> own judgments.
>
> Can you think of something concise that creates a relationship to
> py_libxml2 without depreciating it at the same time?
>

are you objecting to the adjective "cleaner"?

there are word games we can play, but at the end of the day, lets look
at the result we are aiming for:

This package exists because it is "closer to standard python syntax"
than py_libxml2.

That is why YOU use it. And you use it because in your view, it is
"better than" py_libxml2.
So anything we put in, is going to have some sort of "negative"
reflection of py_libxml2. Because after all, anything we put in that
accurately describes it, is going to imply py_libxml2 is inferior.
Which it is. Otherwise, you wouldnt have bothered packaging py_lxml :-)


If the user does not share your value judgements about "being close to
python syntax is better", then they wont see it as a negative, so you
neednt worry about it.

change "cleaner" to "standard" if you like, perhaps?