Re: 'native' v. 'string' (RE: I-DACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-06.txt)

[Scott Seligman <scott.seligman@sun.com>]

"Jim Sermersheim" <JIMSE@novell.com> writes:
> 
> But seriously, here are some possible alternatives (in my preference
> order). "common", "natural", "normalized", "ldap", and "native-ldap".
> Not sure if I like any of them better than native, but some may
> alleviate the concerns being raised. My only issue with native is the
> 'local' connotation. Meaning, I don't want people to think that native
> means "the form in which the value is stored in the server's database".

The term "string" was a problem due to confusion between character
string representations and octet string representations.  The term
"native" is a problem because it suggests something about the server's
internals, as Jim notes above.  Would it work to use "character string"
or "character-based string"?  That clearly distinguishes it from
octet string, while respecting our natural tendency to think of
something like "foo$bar" as a string.


Scott