On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Zefram <zef...@fysh.org> wrote: > David Golden wrote: >>For this reason I'd like to formally define the acceptance of 'x-' prefixed >>key names. > > Good concept, but I think "x_" would be a better prefix than "x-". > We've already established usage of "_" to separate words, making the > top-level hash keys satisfy identifier syntax. (Except for "meta-spec", > which is an ugly exception.)
I don't have a strong feeling about "x_" vs "x-". The former is more consistent with the naming pattern of the spec and the latter is more consistent with how extension fields are named in a lot of RFCs. Unfortunately, "meta-spec" is the one field we *can't* change when we upgrade to 2.0. :-) -- David
