Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags Dylan N. Pierce <dylanpierce at megared dot net dot mx> wrote: > But if it's doing "Just this," then let's put our money where our > mouths are and say, "Just this." We don't need private use tags at > all if we are in agreement that corollary information, no matter how > closely related, should be handled outside the tag and, as Randy > notes, we shouldn't encourage the twisting of the tag by saying, > "Here's your scribble area." I don't think it's a matter of encouraging. Users who want to twist the tag will do so, whether we want them to or not. Private-use subtags in "x-" give them a way to stay conformant while still tacking private crud onto the end of a tag, and it gives tag consumers a way to stay conformant while choosing to either (a) attempt to interpret the crud or (b) ignore it. > Cripes, all of XML is the scribble area; we can afford > to keep the tag clean. This language-tag thing isn't just for XML, as we've said. Randy replied: > Would a stronger version of this (or the following paragraphs address > the concerns? If so, proposed text would be appreciated. I think Section 4.5 is strong enough as it is. It says that PU tagging requires a private agreement, which is true. It says to be cautious about allowing them to leak into the general environment, which is true. It employs the rather strong word "useless." I don't see much benefit in either removing the feature or beating users over the head with warnings not to use it. More later, as I get to additional messages on this topic. I'm making my way through 5 digests' worth of LTRU material, which I do NOT get a chance to respond to while I'm at work. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.