On 2 June 2016 at 15:19, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 2, 2016, at 6:08 PM, Nick Timkovich <[email protected]> wrote: > So yea, we need some sort of standard. It could be as simple as just adding > a field to the existing metadata specification with something like: > > Description-Format: txt|rst|md|whatever > > With the assumption that if you omit the field then we do the legacy > behavior of “attempt to render as rst, fallback to plain text”. You’ll > probably want a registry of recommended values (or perhaps, mandatory > values? How do we add a new type of format to the list?). > > Anyways, just an off the cuff idea, but I don’t think there’s anyone > seriously opposed to the idea.
Yep, it's not about opposition, just a matter of there being a range of more important problems ahead of it in the priority queue. That said, we do now have a mechanism to document additional metadata fields without requiring an entire new metadata version (see Provides-Extra in https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/#core-metadata for an example), and there's a catalog of anticipated formats in https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0459/#document-names, so the idea of defining a Description-Format field sounds plausible to me (even if it takes a while for tools to start emitting or reading it). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
