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.
That seems potentially confusing.
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".
BTW in XMPP we called it "urgency" because we already use the term
"priority" in the context of presence (but not in the context of messaging).
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.
Preventing confusion always seems like a good idea.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature