Re: DEP-5: extra fields
Le Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 01:27:37AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:56:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I propose to apply this to DEP-5:
> > ### Extra fields.
> > Extra fields can be added to any section. It is not recommended to prefix
> > their name by **`X-`**.
> I'm not sure the second sentence adds much to this. I suggest dropping it;
> if someone wants to use X- for their field name, I don't see any reason to
> disallow that, do you?
indeed, the second sentence can be removed. But because readers lose a hint
that prefixing by X- in not a requirement (and since it was a requirement in
some previous versions, I think that this hint has its importance), how about
compensating this loss by making sure that at least one example in the DEP
contains an extra field?
> We might simply want to say that maintainers are allowed to add more
> fields, and that compliant parsers must allow these fields without assuming
> anything about their values.
This would be especially important if field structure is not predicatble.
However, I hope that the DEP will provide a clear definition of how fields
start and end. I will open a separate thread about this once the current
threads have finished.
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan