On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> > wrote: > I agree that "Anonymous" or "Anon" is more clear as to the purpose > than "Uniform". > > In the same say this email is anonymous. Sure, I say it is from > MarkM, but my browser doesn't add any identifying info that you can > see. Even if I included MarkM's PGP signature, by your criteria, it > would still be anonymous. Your mail client automatically adds identifying info, as do any mail relays in the delivery path. If that were not the case, I would think it's fair to say the message is sent anonymously based on the envelope being anynymous. That's so even if the message contents include a claim or proof of your identity. > > I understand why UMP uses that term but I don't think it will be > obvious to authors reading code. > > > > "XML" is also a misnomer. And "Http" is confusing as well, since > these requests can (and should) generally be carried over https. At > least we agree on "Request" ;). I agree, but (a) that ship has sailed; and (b) dropping those from the name only in the anonymous/uniform/whatever version would probably be more confusing than helpful, at least if the API ends up being roughly similar. XMLHttpRequest has brand value, and it's worth building on author awareness even if the X and the H are more historical than meaningful at this point. Cheers, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 01:45:55 UTC