[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: short names (descriptors) proposal
(Note: corrected citation)
Ramsay, Ron wrote:
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> At 06:00 AM 2002-11-04, Michael Ströder wrote:
>>>Timothy Hahn wrote:
>>>>Regarding the use of the same name for an attribute type and an object
>>>>class - I agree that it should be "discouraged". I don't think the
>>>>specifications need to explicitly DIS-allow it.
>>> Maybe it would be helpful for application developers if the standard
>>> document explicitly states that an attribute type and an object class
>>> have the same name although discouraged. I had to learn it the hard
>> How about adding the following to 6.2:
>> Note: While discouraged, one name may (for historical reasons)
>> be an alias for multiple OIDs each referring to a different kind
>> of schema element. That is, there may be an objectClass 'fubar'
>> and an attributeType 'fubar'.
This phrasing, and the previous one, seem to suggest it is a really good
idea to use the same name in different namespaces.
I agree that my phrasing with MAY was inappropriate and could encourage
people to do so.
The same name SHOULD NOT be used for different OIDs, even if these OIDs
refer to different schema elements.
I agree the SHOULD NOT sounds stronger than "While discouraged..".
But I can argue the other way round for your phrase: Many naive implementors
could read this phrase above like it never happens. It was my original
intention to give an explicit warning.
How about this:
The same name SHOULD NOT be used for different OIDs. But implementations
MUST be prepared that the same name might be used for multiple OIDs each
referring to a different kind of schema element.