This scheme does not work. So people will find out about it outside of the forum, YouTube, github, and so on, your post. At the same time, they are happy to ignore the official guidance, which is bad.
You’re also essentially promoting it by mentioning that it might work in some cases. People begin to hope for this case and take advantage of it.
I’m not convinced that this is true. And I’d rather try and fail than not try at all.
If they are so, then my post seems unlikely to change that. And further, even if a given person is likely to ignore official guidance, they may nevertheless be open to peer-guidance.
But, as you and I have both said, people are finding out about it anyway. Thus “security through obscurity” doesn’t seem to work. Better, then, to attempt to inform people so that they have more knowledge on which to base their decisions.
Right now, a fair few people seem to be under the impression that it works for the general case, not just some cases. Having them hope that their case is one of the exceptions implies that they’re aware that it might not, which seems like an improvement to me.
Then, I think we will call @You on PRPEE issues as an expert.
I think that you’re rather over-stating my position. There’s a lot of ground between “knowing nothing at all, and thus having nothing to say” and “claiming to be an expert”.
To report on what I’ve read here seems to me to be neither claiming expertise nor over-reaching.
The whole pain in using this exporter is that there is no person who could advise on its application. The PRPEE developer himself does not want to or cannot do this.
However, you still insist on reporting PRPEE as an option for blender.
Because it does exist–and thus is something that might be reported on–and because people keep looking at it as an option–and thus I want to warn people about it.
In fact, there are others. Logically, it is necessary to mention them as well.
However, it is easier to adhere to the rules, official export tools and third-party recognized as working.
I don’t think they need to be mentioned either. However, as an alternative, we can consider the fork from Maxwell175
kergalym tried to distance PRPEE from panda on the advice of rdb, he changed the name and made a note for RP.
It’s not necessary at all.
An argument might be made that it’s a good idea, but it’s far from necessary.
In any case, I went with what I was aware of, I believe.
Furthermore, to quote myself from the second post:
If I’ve left out any options, or omitted any important information, or been mistaken in what I have included, please do correct me!
Furthermore, if new options become available, or old options fall away, please do poke me to edit the list.
This doesn’t help those who might be confused or uncertain about the various options–including PRPEE.
I don’t know much about this one–I don’t think that I’ve heard much. Do you have much information?
I would like to include it, if it’s noteworthy!
And yet, as we saw from a thread added just today (or perhaps yesterday, depending on the time-zones involved), people are still using it. Since people are still using it, information regarding it remains relevant and potentially useful, I feel.
It at least adheres to egg standards, there are no distortions of materials and other output data.
as for PRPEE, mentioning it only prolongs PR and your post is not meaningful in terms of warning users against using it.
We need specific examples:
For example, that it distorts the material and so on.
A quick note to any others in this thread, before I go into a long response below:
Do any others know much about the version of YABEE linked-to by serega above? I’d like to get multiple reports of it if I’m going to include it in the quick-reference!
That said, my reply:
That is a good start!
So, does it work well? What versions of Blender does it work with? What features does it support? Are there any omissions in its feature-set relative to baseline YABEE? Are there any other noteworthy points regarding it?
Some warning is better than no warning.
And I don’t know all problems that it might cause–I’d rather then a blanket warning, to indicate that there are potentially-multiple problems, than attempt to be specific.
Conversely, to give only a few specific warnings might give the impression that the issues so described are the only ones, leaving those who don’t mind those specific issues perhaps thinking that they’ll be fine…
And finally, if there are many issues with it, then its entry seems likely to become over-long.
It seems to be continuing to see use even without this mention. Given that, I’d rather have a warning be available.
Further, when the mention basically amounts to “this exporter has issues, I don’t recommend it”, then I doubt that many will start using it due to that mention!
Ah, yes, I’d forgotten about that! Thank you for the link–I’m keeping it until I (hopefully) feel a bit better than I do right now.
Still, I’d be interested in the experiences of others before I add it!
I’ve updated the list to include @Maxwell175’s port of YABEE.
Alas, I don’t think that I’ve heard much about it, and thus my entry for it is a bit thin–if anyone has experience of using it, please do weigh in!
I’ll have to update the Readme with some screenshots probably, to better illustrate how it works in the new Blender versions and where to find it and such.
That sounds like it might be handy! 
Do you mind if I ask: How is its support for the egg-syntax’s built-in tags? (As opposed to general tags, which I gather that it does support.) Things like depth-offsets, billboarding, and so on?
If it’s as feature-complete as baseline YABEE (or more than, for that matter), then it might just be enough to tempt me to pick up a newer version of Blender!
The goal is to have an input field for each egg property. I believe I already have most of them, but I’ll have to review the docs more thoroughly to find some of the more obscure ones. Currently, all of them are just plain text boxes so you have to know what to enter according to the egg spec, but I will go back and make the ones that have a specific list of valid values a drop down list.
Oh, that’s excellent! That’s very encouraging indeed to read!