On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 10:57:48PM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > I did not mean an URI _into_ a field (like URIs into Description), but a > general field which would only contain a URI. URIs are not descriptive for the > binary package management, so it's my _opinion_ (!standards) that there should > not be one specific field into the package control file. > Of course, i would not remove the extended description. > > If we want to include homepage or snapshot into the package control files, we > may use `home made' protocols in Description: field like: > > <homepage://some.site.org/some/index.html> > <snapshot://some.site.org/some/snapshot.png>
Certainly both of these are useless, as they fail to define a protocol in any meaningful way. (http: and ftp: are both valid and different for those examples.) Even if they were defined they would almost certainly just be aliases for other protocols, and thus would be misuses of the scheme part of URIs. URI schemes are not to be used as a means of expressing the purpose of the URI. > <bugs://some.site.org/some/bug/report/system/> That might be useful, but only if a bug-reporting URI scheme were defined and distinct from existing schemes. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
