1 |
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Brief amendment. In the case where the PM cannot parse the expires |
6 |
> header; it |
7 |
> > should assume the item is not expired and display it (e.g. it should fail |
8 |
> > open.) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > Updated patch attached. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > + ``Expires:`` |
13 |
> > + Date of expiration, in ``yyyy-mm-dd`` format (e.g. 2005-12-18) for |
14 |
> |
15 |
> This is only an example, but choosing a date from 2005 looks strange. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > + compatability with GLEP 45 [#glep-45]_. Translations should use the |
18 |
> date of |
19 |
> > + the original news item. An item is expired if the current date in |
20 |
> UTC is |
21 |
> > + greater than the expiration date of the item. Package manages |
22 |
> should not |
23 |
> > + display expired items. In the event where the Expires: header not |
24 |
> readily |
25 |
> > + converted to a date, package managers should assume items are |
26 |
> unexpired. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I would strike that last sentence. The GLEP already says "tools |
29 |
> handling these news items must ignore any unrecognised header" which |
30 |
> implicitly covers it. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
I wrote a lot more because I also wrote the patches to portage and things |
34 |
were unclear to me. |
35 |
For example when I read the spec "unrecognized header" to me meant the |
36 |
header name only; |
37 |
I'll add some extra words to clarify that invalid values are the same as |
38 |
invalid header names. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
> Also, if we would want to specify more explicitly how to deal with |
43 |
> invalid header syntax, then there should be a general section or |
44 |
> paragraph about that. |
45 |
> |
46 |
|
47 |
Ack, I've modified the unrecognised header section to clarify this a bit. |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
> |
51 |
> > + In news item format ``>2.0``, this field is mandatory. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> I think it should not be mandatory, for the purpose of the tools |
54 |
> dealing with news items. So I'd simply say here: "Only in news item |
55 |
> format 2.1 or later." |
56 |
> |
57 |
|
58 |
My concern is that if it isn't mandatory; we will end up with the same |
59 |
problem. |
60 |
|
61 |
No one will set expiry headers on their items and we will be forced to go |
62 |
back and update old news items to add them once |
63 |
there are too many items (today's state.) |
64 |
|
65 |
Alternatively we could simply state amend the glep to have a default expiry |
66 |
(say 3y) and if no expires header is present we consume the Posted header |
67 |
for this purpose. |
68 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
> > This field |
71 |
> did not |
72 |
> > + exist in formats ``<=2.0`` and is optional there. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> Strike this sentence. If we say "only in format 2.1" above, then it is |
75 |
> clear that it didn't exist before. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> In addition, in the paragraphs for the "Display-If-*" headers, the 2.0 |
78 |
> need to be updated to something like "2.0 or later" or "2.*". |
79 |
> |
80 |
|
81 |
Ack, done. |
82 |
|
83 |
|
84 |
> |
85 |
> Ulrich |
86 |
> |