Re: DEP-5: general file syntax
On su, 2010-08-22 at 16:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I also feel a contradiction to call ‘free-form’ some text that is formatted
> according to some markup rules, even if they are simple. I propose to replace
> instances like:
> Free-form text formatted like package long descriptions
> Formatted text like package long descriptions
> All in all, I would recommend to make these fields free-form. Packaging teams
> that would like to use a more specialised syntax can add their own local
> policies on top of the DEP.
I disagree with this: I think a line-based list is perfectly fine for
Upstream-Contact. Does anyone else have an opinion?
> > @@ -99,13 +132,15 @@
> > * **`Source`**
> > * Optional
> > * Single occurrence
> > + * Value: single line
> > * Syntax: One or more URIs, one per line, indicating the primary
> > point of distribution of the software.
> Since the syntax allows multiple URIs, and since the URIs may be long, I think
> that allowing newlines in the field will make it more readable. for instance by
> making it free-form (not formatted, see below).
Actually, I think I made a mistake: I think Source should be a
line-based list. This will make it easier for parsers to extract the
Splitting a URI to two physical lines seems to me a bad idea, and messes
up URI parsing in too many contexts. (The real fix is to get upstream to
not have excessively long URIs, but that's hard to fix.)
> If the extended description finally requires double space for verbatim display,
> then how abould calling the ‘special first line’ synopsis, to be closer to the
> vocabulary used in the specification of the Description field ?
Could some English experts weigh in whether the word synopsis is a good
way to describe the list of license short names?