David Golden writes: > Is there a de facto standard for custom extensions to META.yml? (I > didn't see one in the spec.) An example might be fields beginning > with a capital letter or "X-foo" style extensions. E.g. > > X-cc-author: no
Does putting "X-" in front of such fields really help? "X-" isn't really a namespace; having 2 people separately inventing the X-Hair-Colour field isn't any better than them clashing over Hair-Colour. And if your X-cc-author field takes off can you really envisage a separate CC-Author field being created? Having them both in existence would be really confusing. So in practice all the "X-" achieves is making users have to remember which field names have an "X-" in front of them and which don't! > Alternatively, what would people think about adding a field in > META.yml like "notes" for this kind of extra information. E.g.: > > notes: > cc_author: no Similar kind of problem: "notes" is very generic (like "other" or "misc"), such that it's arbitrary which is a 'proper' field and which is a 'notes' field. Can't we just start using cc-author as a field, then if it takes off get it blessed as part of the official spec? Smylers
