> >>>>>>>> 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
+1, primarily on the grounds of clarity.
--David
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
