Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On ma, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 +, Philip Hands wrote: Not that I think there's anything wrong with what you already have, so go with whatever you prefer. I'm lazy so I'll with the current wording, in the hope that my assumption of the high level of common sense turns out to be correct. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1290531403.3234.105.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Monday 15 November 2010 17:47:26 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Indeed. But people using extra fields will get warnings, so they will ignore them. Then, they will also ignore warnings triggered by typos in standard fields. True. But I see it as a challenge of parsers rather than a flaw of the format: it could be handled similar to lintian overrides (i.e. silence specific non-standard fields you yourself choose to use). How about calling DEP-5 parser from lintian and let lintian handle the overrides ? IMO this is sliding away from DEP5: feel free to move the conversation to the Config::Model mailinglist if you agree (readers are hereby warned). :-) I'd suggest to nail the use case here. All other implementations details will be discussed in Config::Model mailinglist. All the best Dominique -- http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/ddumont -o- http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201011221004.06823.dominique.dum...@hp.com
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:22:48 +, Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi wrote: On su, 2010-11-14 at 11:13 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Is that enough? This is a minor detail, I'd like to not start specifying too much about how parsers are supposed to handle the fields, etc. I ended up with this formulation, I hope that's acceptable to everyone: -Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Their name starts by **`X-`**. +Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. +No prefixing is necessary or desired, but please avoid names similar +to standard ones so that mistakes are easier to catch. +Future versions of the `debian/copyright` +specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications +for widely used extra fields. It occurred to me before that this should also suggest that people ask around before making up new names, but I thought that should probably go without saying -- both that and this wording both read a little like don't be stupid to me. Not that I'm saying that we shouldn't say Don't be stupid if people think that people need to be told that :-) How about addressing this at a meta-level, by suggesting people consult wider opinion: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Before introducing new field names you should request comments on the wisdom of the new field. When introducing it please also record it on: http://wiki.d.o/.../page-for-proposed-new-DEP5-fields No ``X-'' prefix is required or desired in new field names. At least that should prevent people coming up with similar but different solutions to the same problems, and a wiki page can act as something like a lock. Not that I think there's anything wrong with what you already have, so go with whatever you prefer. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgpUykIA3VsUX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:53:55AM +, Philip Hands wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Before introducing new field names you should request comments on the wisdom of the new field. When introducing it please also record it on: http://wiki.d.o/.../page-for-proposed-new-DEP5-fields No ``X-'' prefix is required or desired in new field names. I think it is a good idea to check. It will hopefully reduce the chances of having lots of fields that mean the same thing, but have different names. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZhttp://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101122200455.gc12...@enc.com.au
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On su, 2010-11-14 at 11:13 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Is that enough? This is a minor detail, I'd like to not start specifying too much about how parsers are supposed to handle the fields, etc. I ended up with this formulation, I hope that's acceptable to everyone: -Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Their name starts by **`X-`**. +Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. +No prefixing is necessary or desired, but please avoid names similar +to standard ones so that mistakes are easier to catch. +Future versions of the `debian/copyright` +specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications +for widely used extra fields. After this, we should have the license shortname, description, SPDX compatibility, etc, discussion remaining before the DEP5 spec should hopefully be finished. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1290244968.3234.44.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Sunday 14 November 2010 12:13:32 Lars Wirzenius wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Le Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Dominique Dumont a écrit : Without prefixing, parsers won't be able to detect typos in field names. So validation of copyright files will be harder. Dear Dominique, perhaps the DEP can recommend against the use of too similar field names? Something like ‘Extra fields should not have names that are different from only one change, deletion or insertion in an existing field name.’ Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101116142415.gd24...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Sunday 14 November 2010 12:13:32 Lars Wirzenius wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Without prefixing, parsers won't be able to detect typos in field names. So validation of copyright files will be harder. All the best Dominique -- http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/ddumont -o- http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201011151428.18313.d...@komarr.gre.hp.com
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:28:17PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Sunday 14 November 2010 12:13:32 Lars Wirzenius wrote: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Without prefixing, parsers won't be able to detect typos in field names. So validation of copyright files will be harder. Isn't your newly implemented warning feature suitable for handling this, Dominique? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Monday 15 November 2010 15:26:17 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Without prefixing, parsers won't be able to detect typos in field names. So validation of copyright files will be harder. Isn't your newly implemented warning feature suitable for handling this, Dominique? Indeed. But people using extra fields will get warnings, so they will ignore them. Then, they will also ignore warnings triggered by typos in standard fields. All the best Dominique -- http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/ddumont -o- http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201011151602.30939.d...@komarr.gre.hp.com
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 04:02:30PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Monday 15 November 2010 15:26:17 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Without prefixing, parsers won't be able to detect typos in field names. So validation of copyright files will be harder. Isn't your newly implemented warning feature suitable for handling this, Dominique? Indeed. But people using extra fields will get warnings, so they will ignore them. Then, they will also ignore warnings triggered by typos in standard fields. True. But I see it as a challenge of parsers rather than a flaw of the format: it could be handled similar to lintian overrides (i.e. silence specific non-standard fields you yourself choose to use). IMO this is sliding away from DEP5: feel free to move the conversation to the Config::Model mailinglist if you agree (readers are hereby warned). :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On su, 2010-11-14 at 11:37 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:12:15PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX compatibility. Hi Lars, I would like to discuss about the addition of ‘X-’ in front of extra fields. I proposed earlier to recommend against, Steve answered that he prefered to simply remove the requirement. I'm fine with pretty much anything with regards to the extra fields. How about we change the wording from this: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Their name starts by **`X-`**. To this: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Is that enough? This is a minor detail, I'd like to not start specifying too much about how parsers are supposed to handle the fields, etc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1289733212.6260.38.ca...@havelock.lan
Re: DEP5: Extra fields without ‘X-’ prefix?
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:13:32AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On su, 2010-11-14 at 11:37 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:12:15PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX compatibility. Hi Lars, I would like to discuss about the addition of ‘X-’ in front of extra fields. I proposed earlier to recommend against, Steve answered that he prefered to simply remove the requirement. I'm fine with pretty much anything with regards to the extra fields. How about we change the wording from this: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. Their name starts by **`X-`**. To this: Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright` specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications for widely used extra fields. Is that enough? This is a minor detail, I'd like to not start specifying too much about how parsers are supposed to handle the fields, etc. Thanks for raising this issue, Charles! I find, like Charles, that X- prefixing should be discouraged, and your proposed rephrasing only relaxes the encouragement IMO. I would prefer to either explicitly discourage prefixing or simply drop that No prefixing is necessary sentence. Kind regards, and thanks for your tremendous patience in this process, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
DEP5: Extra fields without ‘ X-’ prefix?
Le Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:12:15PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX compatibility. Hi Lars, I would like to discuss about the addition of ‘X-’ in front of extra fields. I proposed earlier to recommend against, Steve answered that he prefered to simply remove the requirement. http://lists.debian.org/20091220092737.gc22...@dario.dodds.net In this thread, I refer to the Policy bug #521810. Here is a quote with I find relevant: “RFC 822 used this same X- convention. It is now widely recognized in the e-mail standards community that it was a horrible idea that never should have been introduced. I'm fairly sure that if the IETF had it to do over again, they would not introduce X- fields. They turn out to cause way more problems than they solve, force mass-renamings of fields once they become official, and result in X-* headers persisting as quasi-standards without ever being fully standardized because they can't be standardized with the X-* prefix.” Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101114023744.ga4...@merveille.plessy.net
