The problem is that this will make it impossible to use an existing
HTTP header parser (e.g., in Python, Perl, Ruby, whatever's standard
library), a goal that's guided a lot of the design.
Why not just use
Link: </foo>; rel="something"
Comment: This one is for you, Joe!
Link </bar>; rel="joes-link"
?
On 19/02/2009, at 3:54 AM, Dirk Balfanz wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Breno de Medeiros
<br...@google.com> wrote:
While /host-meta is intended to be parsed by machines and not human-
readable content, it is often the case that users eyeball such
content for clues. For instance:
1. Developer is writing and debugging a library to parse host-meta
files.
2. Developer is looking at /host-meta examples to get clues on how
to write one for his site.
Being able to add human-readable comments on site-meta can be useful
for such tasks. It also helps to preserve 'institutional memory' by
documentation in place, which is often the only one that developers
can locate.
Should there be a simple mechanism for line comments in site-meta?
+1 for comments.
I propose that any line that starts with # (possibly preceded by
whitespace) is a comment.
Dirk.
--
Mark Nottingham m...@yahoo-inc.com
