Le 2013-03-19 à 10:31, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 3/19/13 7:22 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >> >> On Mar 19, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 19 March 2013 12:23, Joseph Yee <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Peter Saint-Andre >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> On 3/18/13 7:03 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18/03/2013 17:18, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>>>> During the WG session last week, I got the sense that >>>>>>> people find the term "NameClass" misleading ("why can't I >>>>>>> represent my name using the NameClass?!"). Thus I propose >>>>>>> changing it to "SafeClass". Any objections? >>>>>> >>>>>> I like SafeClass much better. >>>>> >>>>> It's the best I could come up with on the plane yesterday. >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> My only concern is that people might think "safe" is some >>>>> kind of guarantee that nothing bad could ever happen if they >>>>> use the SafeClass... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> I have the same concern about SafeClass too. Can't think of a >>>> better name, but don't see it as big concern. Probably just >>>> more text needed to explain 'safe' under what condition. >>>> >>>> Just throwing names out from my brain... >>>> >>>> RestrictedClass? IdentifierClass? ResourceNamingClass? >>> >>> I was also going to suggest IdentifierClass just as your message >>> came through. Many people already understand an 'identifier' to >>> consist of characters from a restricted set (as in 99% of >>> programming languages, and various protocols). Usernames usually >>> draw from a similar set of characters in most systems. >>> >> >> +1 to IdentifierClass. >> >> The suggestion that first came to my mind was probably worse: >> BasicClass > > Yeah, I thought of that one too. The idea behind SafeClass is that > it's intended to be safe, just as the FreeClass is intended to be > free. But IdentifierClass is OK with me. - Safe is an overloaded word. How can we claim to have something safe with the zillions unicode codepoints. - I prefer IdentifierClass, but just too long. - suggesting: IdClass. Marc. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRSHbYAAoJEOoGpJErxa2psdEP/jUmPzHxxiMUlRi7L9Rqi39f > oDUIgyOfSoNo5EPLcVr2j5IsGayXpOGBVG5UN53aCvrsNxJXXOzD3RfLgxEbtojI > UgmD4v2B7mvXKj+v8y6J+2577FfoN+A7jyMHY/6DC+fCK2pOesXXX+fU51hulaH1 > MyJqYIpEvxm4vmTMcnCx/NphM2j3eTPAooRt0KceXiCSGY854wVwun4dUrwp805P > JYyMeZHL7+55KVsYPuSNLy2VWuh/u2b2JWQLGz4f2pG+4CEJjFQCBHWPt6t7IlT2 > Qb1ULcfjQSnlgVakOb8EgAsuNE8r4WuRPmcL0xW83tGBz9wv9dekpjH5krRpnI+9 > HHYJrv5d2yBxKVkonDtpCxWB7lB94BA47c0sNdTe7qBeNEu+ugfVaNFGkUP52KjO > l9m1IzEXjSYj9vZrfFETyujGOa3du3pHrwSvsIdiunBDL0QPgfkgI5LQ/kPe9GHn > aTWGDFInN8NwKHVuZVU5kF5HJv1mAjAuT5eXm495twstiCoxWLKK/2RZ4LydH83V > a2lw/3oI/ibIG/KeWWZs+oMPEHHVh7YQ7PNObZqzW5jYnVVwiVmlzREKyaNNBrYf > MYN4dVq8wKXlOkaZQy5NCTvdCBEgeCNB6MoXqtCv7+8E3otiKEEStlp1cIsRJSDE > UlpZyK/4xY/N2OR97BxW > =a8cT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > precis mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
