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?
Hi Steve, 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, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
