Re: [Gzz] Storm URIs

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho]

On 20020820T235348+0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> Alternatives to the above scheme include using x-storm: or urn:x-storm: 
> for now. Maybe these are better. (URIs actually don't have the x- 
> mechanism in the standard though, AFAIK.) Opinions?

Ted once said to me that nothing is as permanent as the temporary.

The NNTP folks at IETF are having a problem with "experimental" commands
such as XOVER that are used virtually by all clients and implemented by
all major servers.  I think their current Internet Draft calls for a
rename to OVER (changing semantics slightly IIRC), which will require a
change of the whole current installed base (which is HUGE).

Similarly, the HTTP/1.1 spec explicitly mentions x-gzip compression,
which it (IIRC) renames to gzip.

I'd go for non-x names.

-- 
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)    * http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * address@hidden