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