Eric Allman wrote:
--On February 17, 2006 10:02:37 AM +0000 Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
+2
+3. I always have to look the damned things up.
Oh goody, I get to be a contrarian!
-1
For two reasons:
1) With my developers hat on, I couldn't really care the least:
if you have to look them up, you probably need to look up the
other single character tags too. This is just a matter of being
familiar with the spec, and h, z, b, m etc are all equally
opaque IMO.
2) I'm guessing that we will utterly fail to have a single word that
describes the rich semeantics of the policy attached to whatever
symbol we choose. Witness this latest brouhaha with "exclusive"
which is not even part of the current draft. An abstract symbol
which has no baggage of its own and is, in fact, just a pointer
to the normative text seems like a better way to avoid
misinterpretation.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html