David Golden wrote:
>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.
"x-" is used in a lot of RFCs where field names generally use "-" as
a separator. There's also "x." in MIME media subtypes, under the new
system where "." is used as a hierarchical separator. ("x-" was used in
the same place under the older, flat, form of the namespace, where "-"
is commonly used as a word separator.) The consistent feature of this
pattern is using "x" as the leading component of a multi-component name;
the component separator is an orthogonal issue.
-zefram
