Re: Bug#521810: debian-policy: Document user defined fields starting with X-
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If you're going to standardize a prefix that's purely for private,
>> internal use and will never, ever be standardized in any fashion, could I
>> convince you (and Nils) to use a prefix other than X-? E-mail has
>> poisoned the well on X-, and now people read it to mean "anything that's
>> not been standardized yet" and tend to use it for things that they do plan
>> to standardize later. They're not all going to read the documentation.
>>
>> For this particular use, how about a prefix of Private- instead? That
>> makes it much more explicit that if you're not the organization adding
>> this, you shouldn't expect to understand it or ever use it.
>
> It sounds weird to me on first sight but I would not mind using another
> prefix. Let's see what Nils and Guillem think. (and others who might care)
Well, debian control fields are not that much in flux as email fields
are (or were?), with hundreds of people wildly adding new fields and extensions,
so the argument "email poisoned the well" does not sound that much convincing
to me.
That said, I will just happily use whatever prefix Debian comes up with,
provided dpkg-deb will not warn about it.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / with kind regards
Nils Rennebarth, Software Developer
--
Funkwerk IP-Appliances GmbH
Mönchhaldenstraße 28
D-70191 Stuttgart
Tel: +49 711 900300 - 0
Fax: +49 711 900300 - 90
E-Mail: Nils.Rennebarth@funkwerk-ec.com
Location: GmbH Neu-Ulm, Local Court Memmingen, HRB 13043
Managing Directors: Michael Marsanu, Steffen Herrmann
--------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail has been carefully researched,
but the possibility of it being inapplicable in individual cases cannot
be ruled out. We therefore regret that we cannot accept responsibility
or liability of any kind whatsoever for the correctness of the
information given. Please notify us if you discover that information is
inapplicable.
Reply to: