Subject: uppercase attribute names

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:23:35 +0100

I dislike the uppercased attribute names used particularly in examples
of DNs (including LDAP URIs) and RDNs.  People copy usage from examples.
Uppercase is ugly, it's different from the attribute names in [Schema],
and it gives no guidance to how to upper/lowercase attribute names that
consist of several words.

This occurs in [Models], [Protocol], [DN] (including the table of
attributes to recognize in DNs) and [Syntaxes].
Also draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-04.txt.

There are some uppercase names outside DNs too, and it would be nice to
get at them as well.  However, that's less important because it doesn't
set an example of how to spell them in the same way as DN examples do
(because they are spelled with lowercase in [schema]):

[Models], [Authmeth], [DN], draft-zeilenga-ldap-rfc2596-04.txt.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:58:59 -0800

Hallvard,

The documents follow a well-established (before LDAP), widely accepted
practice in uppercasing very short attribute type descriptors appearing
in AVAs.  I don't see your view that this usage is "ugly" as being
technically relevant and certainly is quite subjective.  I believe
the choice of case here should be left to the editors on the grounds
that, to the protocol/models, case doesn't matter.

As far as the case in the examples being different than the case in
the name field of their descriptions, I note that case used in the
examples is generally consistent with their official IANA registrations
and other definitive tables of attribute type descriptors.  One could
(I won't) argue that it is the name fields which should be changed.

As far as guidance (to schema designers), that's a topic for future
documents (considerations for schema designers).

Kurt

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:01:54 +0100

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> practice in uppercasing very short attribute type descriptors
> appearing in AVAs.

Well, maybe we should begin to change that practice.

> I don't see your view that this usage is "ugly" as being
> technically relevant and certainly is quite subjective.

Quite so.  It's entirely a matter of preference, and I've stated mine.
I wondered if others agreed, or cared.  'Technically relevant' doesn't
matter much since it's only about examples anyway.

> I believe the choice of case here should be left to the editors on the
> grounds that, to the protocol/models, case doesn't matter.

OK.

> (I won't) argue that it is the name fields which should be changed.

I'm not sure which name fields you mean here, but I guess that's not
important unless someone else thinks that something should be changed.

> documents (considerations for schema designers).

No, I didn't mean more guidance than the guidance given by examples in
existing documents.

Anyway, I've said my piece now.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:14:53 -0500

>>grounds that, to the protocol/models, case doesn't matter.

As long as it is clear that case does not matter, I am not too concerned 
about what is used in the examples and in the text.  Do some of the 
examples use mixed or lower case?  That is something editors may want to 
take a look at... but obviously not the most urgent issue we have to 
worry about ;-)

-Mark

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:07:00 +0100

Mark Smith writes:
> examples use mixed or lower case?

After a few quick 'grep's:

Short attribute names in DN examples (including URIs) -
  [DN], [Syntaxes]             uppercase.
  [URL], [Authmeth], [Schema]  lowercase.
  [Models], [Protocol]         both, but mostly uppercase.

Other short attribute names (only looked for common names) -
  [DN]             uppercase.
  [URL], [Filter]  lowercase.
  [Models]         a mix of both.

Mixed-case longer attribute names -
  Not in DNs, but a few elsewhere: objectClass, aliasedObjectName,
  shoeSize, seeAlso in [DN], [Filter], [Models], [Protocol], [URL].
  
> That is something editors may want to take a look at... but obviously
> not the most urgent issue we have to worry about ;-)

True.

-- 
Hallvard