- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:00:25 +1100
- To: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com>
- Cc: Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "xri@lists.oasis-open.org" <xri@lists.oasis-open.org>, "www-talk@w3.org" <www-talk@w3.org>
The problem is that this will make it impossible to use an existing HTTP header parser (e.g., in Python, Perl, Ruby, whatever's standard library), a goal that's guided a lot of the design. Why not just use Link: </foo>; rel="something" Comment: This one is for you, Joe! Link </bar>; rel="joes-link" ? On 19/02/2009, at 3:54 AM, Dirk Balfanz wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Breno de Medeiros > <breno@google.com> wrote: > While /host-meta is intended to be parsed by machines and not human- > readable content, it is often the case that users eyeball such > content for clues. For instance: > > 1. Developer is writing and debugging a library to parse host-meta > files. > 2. Developer is looking at /host-meta examples to get clues on how > to write one for his site. > > Being able to add human-readable comments on site-meta can be useful > for such tasks. It also helps to preserve 'institutional memory' by > documentation in place, which is often the only one that developers > can locate. > > Should there be a simple mechanism for line comments in site-meta? > > +1 for comments. > > I propose that any line that starts with # (possibly preceded by > whitespace) is a comment. > > Dirk. -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 00:03:35 UTC