Re: RFC round 4: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:04:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> I do not see an increase of accuracy in going from:
>> a set of RFC-2822 compliant fields
>> a set of fields similar to the ones used in RFC-2822.
> RFC-2822 specifies:
> the header field:
> Subject: This is a test
> can be represented as:
> Subject: This
> is a test
> In Debian control files, DEP 3 and DEP 5, some fields preserve the
> newline characters (which by the way are specified by RFC-2822 to be
> CRLF), and give a special importance to the first line. A strictly
> RFC-2822 parser can not parse Debian control files nor DEP 3 patch
> headers, as it will not preserve CRLF characters.
You have a point here.
> What I am simply asking, is that if DEP 3 is not RFC-2822 compliant,
> it is not written that it is RFC-2822 compliant.
I see. I think it is of value to state that the fields are
RFC-2822 compliant, with exceptions delineated below; and make the
exceptions to certain filed be clearly stated.
This, I think, is better than loosening the language all over,
for every field; and it allows the parser to only special case the
explicitly named fields, and any unknown header filed can be parsed in
a standards compliant manner.
The sum of the intelligence of the world is constant. The population
is, of course, growing.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C