On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 07:30:34AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:36:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > I also noted that in the description of the Format field, it is written
> > > “Required in
Le Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:36:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > I also noted that in the description of the Format field, it is written
> > “Required in header paragraphs”, but the such information is not given in
> > simil
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:45:09PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Does this look ok? Does anyone think there's a better way to do this?
> > Have I introduced any errors in the conversion?
> Yes, please. This looks great. Thank you!
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:11:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote
Le Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:15:06PM -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
> I propose to refactor the document to add a new top-level "Fields" section,
> and to split the definitions of the fields out from the information about
> their usage in each paragraph type. Patch is attached.
>
> Does this lo
Steve Langasek writes:
> The current DEP5 document is awkward to read with an eye towards
> implementation. Several field names are common to more than one
> paragraph type, yet the definitions of these fields are given as part of
> the definition of one paragraph type or the other; and as a res
5 matches
Mail list logo
