[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

Mark Stapp mjs at cisco.com
Tue Sep 16 11:33:04 PDT 2014

On 9/16/14 10:29 AM, Massimo Gallo wrote:
> I think we agree on the small number of "component types".
> However, if you have a small number of types, you will end up with names
> containing many generic components types and few specific components
> types. Due to the fact that the component type specification is an
> exception in the name, I would prefer something that specify component's
> type only when needed (something like UTF8 conventions but that
> applications MUST use).

so ... I can't quite follow that. the thread has had some explanation 
about why the UTF8 requirement has problems (with aliasing, e.g.) and 
there's been email trying to explain that applications don't have to use 
types if they don't need to. your email sounds like "I prefer the UTF8 
convention", but it doesn't say why you have that preference in the face 
of the points about the problems. can you say why it is that you express 
a preference for the "convention" with problems ?


More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list