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 :)
Aaron