Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Chris has posted the following comment during the IESG review: > >> An issue with nomenclature that I recommend fixing. This document uses >> the term "importance" with a completely different meaning from the >> "importance" header in the Header Registry. That seems potentially confusing. >> Indeed, in this document, >> the term "importance" has the same meaning as the "priority" header in >> the mail headers registry and the "urgency" header in the XMPP registry. >> I would prefer this used consistent terminology. I recommend ":urgency" >> or ":priority" instead of ":importance". BTW in XMPP we called it "urgency" because we already use the term "priority" in the context of presence (but not in the context of messaging). >> I understand the change would >> be annoying this late in the process given the notify XMPP document has >> to be updated as well, which is why I'm not making this a discuss issue. >> But please consider this seriously. > > Are people Ok with changing the tag name? Are there any implementations > of the latest draft? > > If there is no WG consensus to change the tag name, authors can update > the tag description to use consistent terminology. Preventing confusion always seems like a good idea. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature