Update according to version 1 of the SailfishOS:Chum metadata definition

[Olf0]

References:

• Issue #100 "Draft a version of the metadata specification"
• PR #181 "Metadata: parse new names" for the SailfishOS:Chum GUI application.

[rinigus]

It would make sense to list the tags that were kept as synonyms from older spec. Otherwise, LGTM

[Olf0]

It would make sense to list the tags that were kept as synonyms from older spec.

I originally intended that, but deliberately decided against it after trying some things and considering as follows:

1. The intention is to propose using the new tags when writing a Chum metadata section, hence I did no want to depict the four old tags as equivalent.
2. So I tried using small characters for mentioning the "old" tags below the current one in the first column of the table, but that looks ugly, because the whole document does not use small characters plus GitHub's Markdown dialect only supports sub- and superscript, but not the <small> attribute, hence the formatting becomes strange.

My solution is to explicitly and clearly denote the relationship between the v0 and v1 of the Chum metadata definition in the second bullet point of the Notes section above the table: Its second, concluding sentence contains three links and all three are nicely showing the old tags.

"Note that four tags of the original version 0 are deprecated due to issues, but still valid as synonyms to the four tags which superseded them in version 1."

Because explaining the relationship between v0 and v1 was necessary any way, it looks like an elegant solution to me to embed these three references as links there. I also tried naming all eight tags (the four new and the four old ones) in this second bullet point of the Notes section, but then it grew too large to still be concise ("on the point") to be read and understood quickly.

Don't you think that the aforementioned statement with the three links unambiguously tells packagers / developers that the old tags are still valid?

[rinigus]

@Olf0, it is fine. Let's keep it as it is proposed, thank you very much for testing it before! Good for merging on my side.