stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Jun 29 10:28:35 CDT 2001
> Hey Peter,
> Great stuff on the DTD. I like it!
Thanks! I realized this morning that I left out the stuff you had about
"Replaced-By" and so on, maybe I'll try to add that back in.
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:57:07AM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > >
> > > > - wouldn't it be useful to be able to identify what proposal type
> > > > a JEP is, by looking at its number? How about a prefix such as
> > > > 'S', 'J' or 'I' for 'Standards Track', 'JIG' or 'Informational'
> > > > respectively.
> > >
> > > Hmmm, well we were really just following the Python usage. But I suppose
> > > we could have JEP-I0001 and JEP-J0001 and so on -- do you think that would
> > > get confusing?
> > Well, I'm not aware to what extent the Pythonists get confused. I suppose
> > with time, a prefix might not be necessary, but while it can help us get
> > going without doing any harm, why not? Rahul, is there any reason why the
> > Python PEP people keep to this 4-digit restriction?
> I am guessing that this is bacause standards track PEP's outnumber
> informational ones by a few times. This is likely to happen here too..
Actually since we'll be using JEPs as a mechanism for proposing JIGs, I
think it might be helpful to delineate the three JEP types in the numbers
as DJ has suggested.
More information about the Members