Re: DEP5: "extra" fields compliant with the spec? [Was, Re: New version of DEP-5 parser]
On su, 2011-01-23 at 12:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have always been lukewarm on the idea of specifying within the DEP itself
> that "extra fields can be added" without standards-compliance implications.
> 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.
Would you like to propose a patch for discussion?
My personal preference, at this time, would be to not change DEP5 about
this, but re-visit it later if this turns out to be a problem. If the
consensus on -project is that changing the spec now is better, however,
then let's do that.
(I see my current role as DEP5 driver to stand on the brake so we make
only those changes that are really seemed necessary, so we can get this
thing out of the door eventually. I'm not opposed to further changes,
but I would like to avoid re-visiting things unless there's a strong
need. I keep noticing things I'd like to do entirely differently, but
stopping myself from suggesting them.)
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
Reply to: