[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: uppercase attribute names
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> The documents follow a well-established (before LDAP), widely accepted
> practice in uppercasing very short attribute type descriptors
> appearing in AVAs.
Well, maybe we should begin to change that practice.
> I don't see your view that this usage is "ugly" as being
> technically relevant and certainly is quite subjective.
Quite so. It's entirely a matter of preference, and I've stated mine.
I wondered if others agreed, or cared. 'Technically relevant' doesn't
matter much since it's only about examples anyway.
> I believe the choice of case here should be left to the editors on the
> grounds that, to the protocol/models, case doesn't matter.
> As far as the case in the examples being different than the case in
> the name field of their descriptions, I note that case used in the
> examples is generally consistent with their official IANA registrations
> and other definitive tables of attribute type descriptors. One could
> (I won't) argue that it is the name fields which should be changed.
I'm not sure which name fields you mean here, but I guess that's not
important unless someone else thinks that something should be changed.
> As far as guidance (to schema designers), that's a topic for future
> documents (considerations for schema designers).
No, I didn't mean more guidance than the guidance given by examples in
Anyway, I've said my piece now.