A. Pagaltzis writes: > * Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-01 21:45]: > > > 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? > > Then how do you tell whether `bastract` is a typo or extension > field?
You can't. But equally you can't tell if "hints: test-reporter: cc_arthur" is a typo or not. (Admittedly if it's a typo for "abstract" then it's a particularly _bad_ typo ...) > I think adding a `hints` field which is a hash of hashes, where the > key in `hints` acts as a namespace, is the best proposition so far. The extra name-spaces avoid clashes. But I still think that the 'hints' level is unnecessary: for any key in 'hints', can you imagine a situation where it's _also_ a key top-level key? Think how confusing it would be to have both 'test-reporter' and 'hints: test-reporter'. Smylers
