Re: following the same syntax as the continuation lines the folded fields
Regid Ichira wrote:
> Regarding `following the same syntax as the continuation lines the
> folded fields':
> Is a relating word missing? Should the last `the' replaced with
> `of', or `in', and read `following the same syntax as the
> continuation lines of folded fields'?
>
> The context is
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-controlsyntax:
>
>> multiline
>> The value of a multiline field may comprise multiple continuation
>> lines. The first line of the value, the part on the same line as
>> the field name, often has special significance or may have to be
>> empty. Other lines are added following the same syntax as the
>> continuation lines the folded fields. Whitespace, including
>> newlines, is significant in the values of multiline fields.
Yes, there's definitely a missing preposition there, and I would
agree that "following the same syntax as the continuation lines of
folded fields" is the most natural fix.
In fact I notice another problem earlier in section 5.1:
>> Each paragraph consists of a series of data fields; each field
>> consists of the field name, followed by a colon and then the
>> data/value associated with that field. The field name is composed
>> of printable ASCII characters (i.e., characters that have values
>> between 33 and 126, inclusive) except colon and must not with a
>> begin with #.
That last sentence has some jumbled or maybe just redundant words.
Less importantly, it refers to ASCII 58 by name ("colon") but
inconsistently identifies ASCII 35 just as "#". The problem is of
course that hash/pound/numbersign/octothorpe has no universally
recognised name, so maybe it would be better to standardise in the
other direction.
On top of everything else, many authorities include space (and even
tab) as "printable" characters. Instead of opening that can of worms
I would suggest just quoting the range:
The field name must be composed of ASCII characters in the range
[!-~] other than ":", and must not begin with "#".
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: