[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP5: "extra" fields compliant with the spec? [Was, Re: New version of DEP-5 parser]

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:29:03PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first *defining* those fields; and with DEP5, defining them is as straightforward as taking a copy of the DEP, adding your field definitions to it, posting that modified document to the web and referencing the new URL in your Format: declaration. It's not like this even requires you to write a formal XML DTD or something, so I really don't think this is too high a barrier; and if someone thinks that it is, there's always the Comment: field already defined for the purpose of including arbitrary text in the document.

It would be my strong preference to see the language in DEP5 clarified in this manner, and parsers modified to treat unknown fields as validation *failures* when referencing a known Format: URL.


 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: