Subject: [NNTP] Language for extensions and capabilities

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:28:19 -0500

Now that we've moved from LIST EXTENSIONS to [LIST ] CAPABILITIES, how 
should the documents refer to the tokens advertised by CAPABILITIES? 
Currently, we call them "extension label" in the text (or at least I do) 
and the ABNF calls them "extension-descriptor".  Should we continue to 
use one of these, or should we just refer to them as "capability"?  I'm 
reworking the AUTHINFO draft to use a separate capability to list the 
SASL mechanisms, and now I'm in a situation where I have the "AUTHINFO 
extension label" and the "SASL capability".

I'd like to standarize some way of referring to these tokens.  Thoughts?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:45:17 -0800

> extension label" and the "SASL capability".

I'd like to call them capabilities; I think that's more accurate.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:59:01 +0000

> I'd like to call them capabilities; I think that's more accurate.

My text uses the term "capability" for the concept, "capability list" for
the output from CAPABILITIES, "capability line" for one line of that
output, and will use "capability name" for the keyword token (the one at
the start of the line at present, but see other threads).

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:45:34 -0500

> the start of the line at present, but see other threads).

-pre4 uses "extension-label" in 8.1, 10.4 and Appendix D, that's why I 
asked.  Are you planning on changing this text, or leave it as-is?  I'd 
like to use the same language in the extension drafts.

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:46:36 +0000

>> the start of the line at present, but see other threads).

That last should have been "capability label".

> like to use the same language in the extension drafts.

An extension-label will be a specific case of a capability label.
I haven't done the relevant rewriting yet, but I suspect that the term will
largely, if not completely, disappear. Certainly - to my mind - SASL will
be a capability label but not an extension label.