On 3/1/12 5:14 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/1/12 12:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> On Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:47:50 AM The IESG wrote: >>>> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working >> Group >>>> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: >>>> - 'Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols' >>>> <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> as a Best Current Practice >>>> >>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >> solicits >>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to >> the >>>> [email protected] mailing lists by 2012-03-15. Exceptionally, comments >> may be >>>> sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the >>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>> >>>> Abstract >>>> >>>> >>>> Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols >>>> have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-standard" >>>> parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or >> similar >>>> constructions. In practice, this convention causes more problems >>>> than it solves. Therefore, this document deprecates the "X-" >>>> convention for textual parameters in application protocols. >>> ... >>> >>> 2. Recommendations for Implementers of Application Protocols >>> >>> Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general >>> categories of "standard" and "non-standard" parameters in >>> programatically different ways within their applications. >>> >>> Shouldn't this restrict itself to the naming of parameters? Perhaps: >>> >>> 2. Recommendations for Implementers of Application Protocols >>> >>> Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general >>> naming of parameters in programmatically different ways within >>> their applications depending on if they are "standard" or >> "non-standard". >> >> How about this? >> >> Implementations of application protocols MUST NOT programatically >> discriminate between "standard" and "non-standard" parameters based >> solely on the names of such parameters. > > I'm not quite sure. > > Is this supposed to be about how one selects names or how one uses them. I'd > thought it meant the former, but your revised text sounds like the latter to > me.
The concept behind this text was always about how one uses names, or more precisely how code implementations treat them, because the authors are of the opinion that it's a bad idea for implementations to hardcode their handling of parameter based solely on the existence of the string 'x-' at the start of the parameter name. I think the revised text I provided captures this more clearly. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
