On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM, David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Zefram <zef...@fysh.org> wrote:
>> David Golden wrote:
>>>For this reason I'd like to formally define the acceptance of 'x-' prefixed
>>>key names.
>>
>> Good concept, but I think "x_" would be a better prefix than "x-".
>> We've already established usage of "_" to separate words, making the
>> top-level hash keys satisfy identifier syntax. (Except for "meta-spec",
>> which is an ugly exception.)
>
> I don't have a strong feeling about "x_" vs "x-". The former is more
> consistent with the naming pattern of the spec and the latter is more
> consistent with how extension fields are named in a lot of RFCs.
Since no one has strong feeling about it, the new rule shall be qr{^x[_-]}i.
Patch here:
http://github.com/dagolden/cpan-meta-spec/tree/34-private-keys
-- David
