Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Of course, if someone believes Policy is wrong, they can always propose >> to change it. In this case, though, I think Policy's current position >> is also the correct technical one to take.
> Good luck with convincing the ones implementing it... You make it sound like it's an ASN.1 encoder or something. If Joerg says that he absolutely won't change dak, or the release team absolutely won't change britney, then we certainly need to talk about that, but I think it's just dak and britney that are affected, britney is mostly the only place that it matters, and I'd be surprised if it's a hard code change. > Why should it be case insensitive? I think I already covered this, but to restate: because it's been documented as case-insensitive for at least seven years and probably more than a decade and because there's a long-standing minority practice of using it in all caps for an urgency of high (possibly going back to the packaging manual that documented urgencies in all caps while stating that case was insignificant). > It's not case insensitive now and I do not see any technical reason to > change that. It's not that package names, sections or anything else is > case insensitive, is it? Those feel like different cases to me. Package names and sections are names whose meanings are external to the specification of the relevant field and represent directories on disk or file names, which are also case-sensitive. Urgency is a keyword. I think keywords are generally better treated as case-insensitive. An example that feels similar to me is control field names. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
