On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:22:35PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> To bring this back to where it started, the issues are (for PSARC):
> - given that there will be future work that wants to generate
> parsable output, do we need an opinion written up (for this case)
> to serve as the notice of our decision about it or is it sufficient
> to just cite this case?
>
> - if we're going to use this case as the foundation for all future
> cases that are presenting output from commands, such as these,
> that is meant to be parsable, do we:
> 1) decide that we insist that commands use -o/-p unless history
> prevents it? (i.e. new commands *MUST* use this combination)
Maybe.
> and
>
> 2) decide that | is our field separator or do we decide on another?
> (":" is already used but "," would make output immediately
> consumable by things that work on .csv files.) I'm not concerned
> about introducing something different, it is more important for
> what is introduced to make sense and work easily.
One big issue I have with this tabular output approach is that I don't
know how to then unescape the escaped separator characters in the field
values.
> 3) have fun discussing this now, let this case do whatever and
> spend a whole bunch of time discussing it with some future case
> and let people rewhack their commands at some later date?
4) Fully bake this case.
