Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2018/01/14 03:11, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > Stuart Henderson writes: > > > > $ pkg_info pup > > > > Information for inst:pup-0.4.0 > > > > > > > > Comment: > > > > Parsing HTML at the command line > > > > > > Lowercase start of COMMENT. It could be more informative, maybe > > > "shell tool to filter HTML: CSS selectors, HTML/JSON output"? > > > > That crams in a lot of detail for a COMMENT. How about just the first > > part, "shell tool to filter HTML"? When casually browsing packages I'm > > much more interested in the fact that it filters HTML than that it uses > > CSS selectors to do so. > > > > I don't think it's a bad thing for COMMENT to have a high signal:noise > ratio.. > > "to filter HTML" doesn't give much idea what this does. It makes me think > of something that strips out HTML and converts to text or similar? > > If you know what you want to do and that a program exists to do it, > but you can't remember it because it has a name that is neither memorable > nor relates to what it does, at least grepping www/*/Makefile for 'CSS > selector' will find it then. And if you don't know that such a program > exists but know what a CSS selector is, it gives you a very good idea > what it does without looking in DESCR. > > As an alternative "command line tool to filter HTML using CSS selectors" > is a bit easier-reading, though it does lose information.
ping, this software is really handy. not sure about the COMMENT, sthen@'s proposition is fine to me as I'm fine with the last tarball COMMENT using "parsing" instead of filter. ok solene@ for the port though
