Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers
W. Trevor King
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 06:16:56PM -0600, J Lovejoy wrote:
Back to the Short Identifier additions are: characters, given theI'm fine with this proposal going out as you have it, but I've put a
few suggestions inline in case you want to pick them up.
• Short identifier to be used to identify a license or exceptionThis matches what's currently live , but it could probably be
tightened up to something like:
Short identifiers identify licenses and exceptions from the SPDX
License List in the context of an SPDX file, a source file, or
• Short identifiers have no spaces in them consist of ASCII lettersI think it is sufficient to list the allowed characters:
Short identifiers consist of ASCII letters (A-Za-z), digits (0-9),
full stops (.), and hyphen/minus signs (-).
And then, if you want to draw attention to spaces in particular, add a
second sentence to that list item:
They do not contain spaces or other characters except those
mentioned in the previous sentence.
• Where applicable, the abbreviation will be followed by a dash andThis line is currently live , but do we need to keep it? Not all
of our versions are X.Y. For example, W3C-19980720  is in YYYYMMDD
format. Perhaps that falls under "where applicable", but why call out
one specific versioning approach?
• Short identifiers must not be duplicative and must be differentThese cover the two points I think need to get covered. So while I
prefer my previously-suggested wording , I'm fine with this
: Subject: Re: explanation for ensuring no duplicate identifiers
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:18:34 -0700
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy