Am Mittwoch, den 01.02.2012, 14:56 -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> writes: > > Am Mittwoch, den 01.02.2012, 14:49 -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery: > > >> Yeah, both of those were among the other syntax proposals that were > >> suggested, and I think one of them was in the document at one point. > >> Using backslash is probably the easiest, although it does make parsing > >> the files harder. > > > IMHO allowing both would be the optimum. A real parser would have > > problems with both, but a simplistic "parser" that just split the string > > by spaces would have a problem. > > Yeah, that was, as I understand it, the motivation (to allow really simple > parsers). What is more important: A "good looking" copyright file or being parsable by a dead simple, stupid parser? The proposed changes would make the parser overly complex. > I don't know if it's worth revisiting this. I can't say that I > particularly liked the outcome we arrived at, but theoretical holes in > standards bother me a lot (possibly more than they should). I would call a theoretical hole a design bug. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part