New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PEP 700: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes #2840
Conversation
Please also add this to the CODEOWNERS file. |
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ | |||
PEP: 700 | |||
Title: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a good idea to make clear in the title that these fields are for the new JSON form of the simple API, e.g. prepending "JSON" or "JSON form" to "Simple API"? Reading the title, I mistakenly assumed it was about the HTML simple API, backporting things from the new JSON [simple] API, rather than adding these additional fields (despite seeing the discussion about this some time ago). But up to you of course, as the PEP author 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Honestly, I originally had that but I removed it because I wanted the title to be reasonably short. It's still a bit too long for my liking...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I see—good point. It's also got a double "for", which isn't ideal either.
If you want to shorten it, do you like this better? Its a fair bit shorter than the current, adds "JSON" and avoids the double "for":
Title: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes | |
Title: New Fields for the JSON Simple Package Index API |
Or what about this? Adding "based" to be clearer/more readible, but still shorter than the current version:
Title: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes | |
Title: New Fields for the JSON-Based Simple Package Index API |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, it's a (slightly) open question whether the fields get added to the HTML API as well, so I'm going to say no, let's leave it as it is. There are way more significant questions with the PEP content anyway 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Totally fair 🙂 If you still want to shorten what you do have, here are a couple options for you to consider:
Title: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes | |
Title: Additional Fields for the Simple Package Index API |
or
Title: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes | |
Title: New Fields for the Simple Package Index API |
Anyway, I'll stop nagging you now, sorry!
No description provided.