Re: DEP5: "extra" fields compliant with the spec? [Was, Re: New version of DEP-5 parser]

2011-01-25 Thread Lars Wirzenius
On su, 2011-01-23 at 12:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > I have always been lukewarm on the idea of specifying within the DEP itself > that "extra fields can be added" without standards-compliance implications. > I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first > *defining* t

Re: DEP5: "extra" fields compliant with the spec? [Was, Re: New version of DEP-5 parser]

2011-01-23 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:29:03PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first *defining* those fields; and with DEP5, defining them is as straightforward as taking a copy of the DEP, adding your field definitions to it, posting that modif

DEP5: "extra" fields compliant with the spec? [Was, Re: New version of DEP-5 parser]

2011-01-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: > Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 22:18:18, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Not having looked at the code, I'm wondering: do you apply these > > translations to all files regardless of the Format/Format-Specification > > field's value, or a