Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Aaron Stone wrote:
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 :)
Just to be clear, a tag name of ":priority" would not necessarily cause
confusion in XMPP.
Speaking as a WG member (and not as a co-editor/chair): I dislike
changing the document to use :priority, because :priority was used in an
older version of the document and is already deployed.
So I would prefer to either change to :urgency or keep :importance, but
adjust terminology in order to clear any confusion.
Any other opinions?
I don't have a preference.
Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature