<div><span style="color: rgb(160, 160, 168); ">On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:</span></div><blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span><div><br></div><div>The only thing I really care about is the namespacing, for the same</div><div>reasons the IETF wrote RFC 6648, as Petri linked earlier [1].</div><div>Establishing proper name registration rules can categorically</div><div>eliminate a bunch of problems further down the line (such as the past</div><div>confusion between which metadata entries were defined by PEPs and</div><div>which were setuptools-specific extensions that other tools might not</div><div>understand).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></span></blockquote><div>I'm happy with any form of a namespace to be quite honest. I have a bit of</div><div>a preference for no or flat namespace but i'm perfectly fine with a PyPI based</div><div>namespace. The important part is a defined way to extend the data that</div><div>even when tools don't understand the extended data they can losslessly</div><div>move it around from setup.cfg/setup.py/whatever to METADATA and</div><div>any other format, even if they themselves don't utilize it, leaving it intact</div><div>for tools that _do_ utilize it. </div>
<div>
<br>
</div>