Oh goody, I get to be a contrarian!
-1
Mike, I would have been severely disappointed if you weren't a
contrarian.
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.
Good point, but I still find (most of) the letters to be more
mnemonic than characters such as "-", "~", and "!", all of which mean
"not" to me.
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.
I have to admit that this is a good point.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html