Am 31.08.12 05:16, schrieb Daniel Holth:
After this discussion it seemed wiser to submit my proposed 1.2 edits
as Metadata 1.3, adding Provides-Extra, Setup-Requires-Dist, and
Extension (with no defined registration procedure).
Thanks for doing this. A few comments:
1. -1 on "tolerant decoding". I think the format should clearly specify
what fields are text (I think most of them are), and mandate that
they be in UTF-8. If there is a need for binary data, they should be
specified to be in base64 encoding (but I don't think any of the
fields really are binary data).
2. The extensions section should discuss order. E.g. is it ok to write
Chili-Type: Poblano
Extension: Chili
Platform: Basmati
Extension: Garlic
Chili-Heat: Mild
Garlic-Size: 1tsp
3. There should be a specification of how collisions between extension
fields and standard fields are resolved. E.g. if I have
Extension: Home
Home-page: http://www.python.org
is Home-page the extension field or the PEP 345 field? There are
several ways to resolve this; I suggest giving precedence to the
standard field (unless you specify that extensions must follow all
standard fields, in which case you can drop the extension prefix
from the extension keys).
4. There needs to be a discusion of the meta-syntax. PEP 314 still
mentioned that this is RFC 822; PEP 345 dropped that and didn't
say anything about the syntax of fields (i.e. not even that they
are key-value, that the colon is a separator, that the keys
are case-insensitive, etc).
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
