Adam Turoff
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:32:39 -0800
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +0000, David Mitchell wrote: > > Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best > PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs > with a short string chosen by the author? This allows us to (hopefully) > unqiuely refer to a document during disussions, but when a final winner > is chosen and given a number, the offical library can still pretend the > losers never existed, unless people look in the 'losers' section. > EG > PDD-dapm-GC > > rather than > > PDD-TDB > > for my attempt at garbage collection or whatever. There are advantages with using simple enumeration for RFCs/PDDs. (I'll beat that dead horse only upon request.) The disadvantage of switching to a more descriptive naming scheme is that any identification attached to a PDD upon receipt must be final; a PDD cannot be renumbered/renamed once it has been accepted into the archives. To do so would make it more difficult to search the archives for discussion about an idea -- searching on PDD-std-vtbl won't find the threads that lead to that standard, when it was called PDD-sugalski-vtbl. Perhaps a more descriptive prefix/suffix notation on PDDs would improve upon the anonymous nature of RFCs/PDDs, so long as a core name is assigned to a document never changes. Z.