Re: Chris Newman's comment on draft-ietf-sieve-notify

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Aaron Stone wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:18 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>     
>>> Chris has posted the following comment during the IESG review:
>>>       
>>>> An issue with nomenclature that I recommend fixing.  This
>>>> document uses the term "importance" with a completely different
>>>> meaning from the "importance" header in the Header Registry.
>>>> Indeed, in this document, the term "importance" has the same
>>>> meaning as the "priority" header in the mail headers registry and
>>>> the "urgency" header in the XMPP registry. I would prefer this
>>>> used consistent terminology.  I recommend ":urgency" or
>>>> ":priority" instead of ":importance".  I understand the change
>>>> would be annoying this late in the process given the notify XMPP
>>>> document has to be updated as well, which is why I'm not making
>>>> this a discuss issue. But please consider this seriously.
>>>>         
>>> Are people Ok with changing the tag name? Are there any
>>> implementations of the latest draft?
>>>
>>> If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can
>>> update the tag description to use consistent terminology.
>>>       
>> I am comfortable with a change to either name. Matching the keyword
>> and terminology of both mail and xmpp should be a priority, IMHO. (If
>> that means a vote for ':urgency' then so it is :)
>>     
> Just to be clear, a tag name of ":priority" would not necessarily cause
> confusion in XMPP.
>   
Speaking as a WG member (and not as a co-editor/chair): I dislike 
changing the document to use :priority, because :priority was used in an 
older version of the document and is already deployed.
So I would prefer to either change to :urgency or keep :importance, but 
adjust terminology in order to clear any confusion.

Any other opinions?