On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:52:53PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006, David Shaw wrote:
> 
> > Let's make it simpler: I just added the ability to delete notations
> > directly by using a minus sign prefix like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> > 
> > Given these notations:
> >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > if you use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" you'll delete that specific
> > notation.  If you use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" you'll delete all three.
> > 
> > > Also, is issuing a notation again with the same key supposed to replace
> > > an existing notation, or should it - as it does now - add a second
> > > notation with the same key?
> > 
> > I went back and forth on this a few times, as I can see a good
> > argument for either replacement or adding a second notation, but
> > finally went with the current behavior as more flexible.  It's easy
> > enough to change if it doesn't work out well in the field.  Note that
> > this only applies to key matches.  Adding a completely matching
> > notation (both key and value) is skipped.
> 
> Thanks, this looks very good now.  I don't think the fact that one
> cannot add notation keys that start with a dash will be very relevant
> in practice.

Yes.  I figured that since nobody has complained yet about not being
able to start a non-critical notation with a !, then - was safe. :)

David

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Reply via email to