# PEP 700: Additional Fields for the Simple API for Package Indexes

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-700-additional-fields-for-the-simple-api-for-package-indexes/20177>\
**Category:** Packaging\
**Created:** [October 21, 2022, 11:42am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-700-additional-fields-for-the-simple-api-for-package-indexes/20177 "2022-10-21T11:42:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pf\_moore](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pf_moore/32/35_2.png) [@pf\_moore](https://discuss.python.org/u/pf_moore)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2022, 8:08pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-700-additional-fields-for-the-simple-api-for-package-indexes/20177/9 "2022-10-21T20:08:40Z")

</div>

> [@brettcannon](#):
>
> I’m a bit confused on some wording in the PEP

That’s my error, clumsy wording as a result of not making this a version bump. I’ll update the PEP, to basically say that the fields are mandatory. Indexes that don’t want to (or can’t) supply this information, will simply say they only support version 1.0.

That does bring up a question, though. If (when) we introduce version 1.2, will indexes have a way to say that they support whatever’s new in 1.2, but _not_ the fields from 1.1? I’m going to make that someone else’s\[1\] problem though, and ignore it for now.

> [@brettcannon](#):
>
> One other bit of feedback is `upload_time` uses an underscore while everything in PEP 691 uses `-`.

My bad, I’ll fix that.

> [@brettcannon](#):
>
> I personally view the index as an index of files, so it makes sense to me to leave out empty releases.

The problem here is that this is the correct view for the _Simple Index_ API, but as discussed in [Backwards Incompatible Change to PyPI JSON API](https://discuss.python.org/t/backwards-incompatible-change-to-pypi-json-api/17154), there’s a move towards expecting the simple API to replace the Warehouse JSON API (if only because no-one is working on any _other_ replacement for it…) and so it’s being asked to perform double duty.

I’d personally much prefer to keep the two views (and hence the two APIs) logically separate, but I fear that the JSON and XML-RPC APIs are likely to die of neglect\[2\], and I would rather a somewhat-compromised simple API over nothing.

* * *

1. Possibly future me… 

2. I’m just a user of those APIs, I don’t have the time to contribute to their maintenance.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-700-additional-fields-for-the-simple-api-for-package-indexes/20177)._