Le Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:12:15PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > > The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left > for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX > compatibility.
Hi Lars, I would like to discuss about the addition of ‘X-’ in front of extra fields. I proposed earlier to recommend against, Steve answered that he prefered to simply remove the requirement. http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] In this thread, I refer to the Policy bug #521810. Here is a quote with I find relevant: “RFC 822 used this same X- convention. It is now widely recognized in the e-mail standards community that it was a horrible idea that never should have been introduced. I'm fairly sure that if the IETF had it to do over again, they would not introduce X- fields. They turn out to cause way more problems than they solve, force mass-renamings of fields once they become official, and result in X-* headers persisting as quasi-standards without ever being fully standardized because they can't be standardized with the X-* prefix.” Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
