Le Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:25:37AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:12:52AM +0100, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > I am sometimes using an extra Source field in some Files paragraphs, when > > they define works that are not the creation of the main authors, > > especially when it was difficult to find their original upstream location. > > Why use the same field name (Source) in the Files paragraphs as in the > header paragraph when this is not defined - instead of using, say, > 'Component-Source' (or even just 'Comment')? Have you proposed making this > use of Source part of the standard? If so I'm afraid I missed that.
I used the same name to imply that the meaning and syntax is the similar as the header paragraph's Source field. By the way I also sometimes used an additional “Name” field in the same files paragraphs. But this is purely exploratory. I do not mean to propose this use for the current standard. Before making any such proposition, I think that a real-life use case would be needed, that would go beyond data collection for the sake of it. I like that the spec is not too restrictive, so that experimentations are easy. But I understand the counter-arguments as well. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
