-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:42 AM
either personally abusive, or misleading field names that say
one thing but mean another (like the titles of bills in the
US Congress), or frivolous proposals.
Personally abusive field names are unlikely to have any interest or
relevance for other implementers, but that is not the case for field
names that some of us may find "frivolous" or misleading. For example,
the fact that the field name misrepresents the use of the field doesn't
mean that a deployed instance of that field is not out there; when
Congress passes a misrepresented bill, it's the law of the land,
misrepresentation or no. IMO, misrepresented fields are even *more*
important to have in a registry so that the rest of us can know what's
going on. Except for personally abusive names, I think that opinions of
the field should only be noted in the registry and should not enter into
whether the decision as to whether the field gets registered.
well, I've suggested that registrations could be marked with a
"waiting for review" placeholder before review, so they would
appear in the registry - just as long as we get a prompt review.
I agree that one of the keyword/status values should be "unreviewed", so
that the indeterminate usefulness of the field is emphasized. However I
think the next step for a bad field idea should be either "in revision"
or "don't implement", not deregistration of the field.
I just think that putting
a field in a registry without getting prompt review will do
more harm than good.
I agree that prompt review is a good thing. I disagree that a
non-reviewed field is a problem - it should simply be marked as
non-reviewed.
-- jeff