Ray

i agree with Ralph that well known prefixes should not have x-  we may
want to define the x- construct and reserve it for experimentation just
like its done in the ietf - they also use vnd- in mime types and other
things for vendor defined things

besides bath and dc (or zxd as Rlaph wants to call it) im wondering if we
want to define something for all of the other public attribute sets out
there (or some subset like cimi gils, etc)?

mark


On Wed, 8 May 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> Assuming people like the idea of a bath prefix for
> cql, let's move forward. I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Should well-known srw prefixes themselves be
> prefixed with "X-" as Mike suggests?   Please
> comment.  I don't really think that rfc 822 sets
> this precedent as it has alot of well-known fields
> without "x-", and it seems that the "x-" is for
> extensions.  Could we initially assume that there
> will be a manageable set of these, and if we're
> wrong then we can adopt the "x-" pre-prefix in the
> future?
>
> 2.  Do the set of Bath searches that I listed look
> right? Should we run this by the Bath group?
>
> 3. What other well-known prefixes do we want?  One
> for Dublin Core? If so, what should that prefix
> be?  If we adopt the X- convention then there
> isn't a problem, it can be X-dc, and Ralph can use
> dc for  his Dark Custard set.  Still, I'd be
> happier to just use dc as the prefix for dublin
> core.
>
> --Ray
>