Re: [Gzz] Storm URIs

[Benja Fallenstein]

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that's part of why I preferred storm:... Thanks for the examples-- 
I'm convinced of not using x- now ;-)

(Of course, using x- names in a public context is *always* an abuse of 
the standard, so there isn't a terrible lot to gain.)

-b.