--On Friday, July 11, 2003 07:09:28 AM -0700 Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> As $ convention was never documented, I don't see this as a problem. |> If both clients use the keywords in the same way, Junk/NoJunk versa |> $Junk/$NoJunk is just an aestheticchange. | | It is more than esthetics. | | How do you know that "Junk" isn't my keyword to classified messages | related to a particular type of boat found in Asia? Or that it doesn't | classify my "junk" (as in an affectionate term for miscellaneous messages | that I want to keep for various reasons, e.g. jokes, etc.) as opposed to | spam. | | They are indeed in the wrong namespace.
I would like to see Alexey's document recommend a best practice for naming of keywords in the 'private' area to avoid namespace problems: specifically a 'vendor.productid.xxx' convention. I'm already using that format for the keywords that Mulberry uses to avoid any namespace clash issues. If we want to formalise this we could allow IANA registration of the vendor tokens using the ACAP registry (that's what the ANNOTATE extensions do).
-- Cyrus Daboo
