On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The only thing I really care about is the namespacing, for the same reasons the IETF wrote RFC 6648, as Petri linked earlier [1]. Establishing proper name registration rules can categorically eliminate a bunch of problems further down the line (such as the past confusion between which metadata entries were defined by PEPs and which were setuptools-specific extensions that other tools might not understand).
I'm happy with any form of a namespace to be quite honest. I have a bit of a preference for no or flat namespace but i'm perfectly fine with a PyPI based namespace. The important part is a defined way to extend the data that even when tools don't understand the extended data they can losslessly move it around from setup.cfg/setup.py/whatever to METADATA and any other format, even if they themselves don't utilize it, leaving it intact for tools that _do_ utilize it.
Oh, yes, I care about that part, too, as without that there's no reason to define a metadata extension format at all :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia