Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited

Your draft has:

>   In some situations, segregating the name space of parameters used in
>   a given application protocol can be justified:
>   ...
>   2.  When parameter names might have significant meaning.  This case
>       is rare, since implementers can almost always find a synonym
>       (e.g., "urgency" instead of "priority") or simply invent a new
>       name.

It seems to me that a primary benefit of the "X-" convention is that
it makes unprefixed parameter names less socially acceptable; i.e.,
there's a pretty clear rule of thumb that if the name isn't X-
prefixed, it probably has seen a pass through a committee and hence it
stands at least a chance of having the same meaning in multiple
implementations.

I am concerned that if you abandon the X- practice, you will lose this
benefit and finding untainted, available parameter names might become
harder. Sure, you can often find a synonym, but it is not usually as
good as the original choice. I would hate to see things move to a
namespace land-grab like we have seen in DNS.

Has this been raised as an issue before?

-- Dirk

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> Based on comments received to date, I've published a heavily-revised
> version of the "X-" proposal:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xdash-00.txt
>
> Further feedback is welcome!
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>