On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:42 PM, David Golden wrote:
Well, Ken Williams maintains the spec [1] so I consider him the ultimate "approver" for all practical purposes. I wanted to get community reactions/suggestions/improvement and with any luck, some degree of consensus. Then I was going to send Ken a patch to the blead spec and a summary of the discussion (though he's on all these lists, too, so I assume he's following it.)
I *should* be following more closely, but it's a lot to follow. A summary would be awesome if/when things are worked out to consensus - in particular I don't quite understand the "notes" proposal.
In response to other questions about "X-foo", I was mirroring the RFC 822 email spec, where the spec promises that "X-" will never conflict with any future extensions to the spec. (No promise is made about these user fields conflicting with each other, of course) The corollary is that "X-" entries shouldn't be flagged as being in violation of a spec, either. (E.g. by CPANTS) I wasn't recommending it, just putting it out there for consideration. I prefer the "hints" approach, as that makes the purpose of the additional information slightly clearer.
In at least one section of the spec ("resources") we indicate that official in-spec entries are all-lowercase, and user-added ones have at least one uppercase letter. That's similar, though not as obvious.
-Ken
