-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/19/13 7:56 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > Le 2013-03-19 à 10:31, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > 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.
The length of the term 'IdentifierClass' doesn't bother me, and it's very clear. Plus, "id class" feels a bit Freudian to me. ;-) 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRSQnLAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pBmMQALFaU9eE8Tc3TQ8oL9t6Mo3z AN2BrS7N0Mj5A1CPUdIIpIr88w2SVnABntJ8wzZGTlcoBFd7emmEQARear9KlMxM qpZVIAGBDNLtLL4zqKnDyJPEaHg9Tp44IRiXKEMJJhlz9mQzFLUI6KsJcfuv3p45 bewc5Al4f7HBbbuaA7bElThBmykVbBKREikNEjnvD999DrjdXI2AknGLOMNhTCol i33kWl76PXG9spFTSZrORI9d2oEMcFLi1cdHMWd9nMBZjNVEKI3+1HCQGUX1POQH zdOu8X/ELmpQEVATC0bdTL0laMDg7fosfjYupfQYdCkqNP79zAJH2l14iZCR9vaC ucOkbDq8Zx+aHPbo8MvHixCQRHXCfR3KvWBnwGAGYBnB0lTZMW9Gxg1Wg8IQkzhD 7Hwh0DK00JPJTsY9qCUkyV/EsJHEOSkUj4kZ+cnsiCTgJqlmYkeAtBMyxtzmHzCA xdEYW0kG26RxDG2kCXIO46YqHZiGzjQreApNSmncxTfiIf2kOguE1wPTEVouiSGN iLW7XJCF1cM3y/yOlHKXs9JciD28hDsaADDk6u5nPG+h8nrQlQ915ENDZ7kvbYuD lEkMP/Xt6zcP3qPCIUUU1YDggyWRKqos/72/hGDNW2Y8fcFBuLCMRDnJdnOkg9CL KYIvWgrTIu5rFOUkZGy0 =26DQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
