On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 10:44:41PM -0400, Andres Mejia wrote: > Consider two examples of a Files field, one space-separated, and one > comma-separated. > space-separated > Files: a\ b c d\ e\ f g.* > comma-separated > Files: a b, c, d e f, g.* > Which implementation could we reasonably expect most people to understand (to > include people not knowledgeable with shell escaping)? For example, consider > what the two fields may mean to a Windows user. However, this is a contrived example. Spaces are allowed in filenames, but are rare in source packages. Commas are also rare in source packages, but are also allowed. So a machine-parseable rendering of a list of files needs to account for some kind of escaping, regardless of whether you use a comma or a space as your delimiter. (The existing parsers for debian/control files are not a germane precedent; those fields contain lists of package names, which use a restricted character set which includes neither spaces nor commas.) In other words, the real question is: which of these is easier for your hypothetical user to read?: space-separated Files: a\ b c d\ e\ f g.* comma-separated Files: a\,b, c, d\,e\,f, g.* For my part I'm actually inclined to say that the latter is more readable, but let's get the rationale right. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature