RE: [chairs] Oasis document identifiers - conclusion?

[Drummond Reed <Drummond.Reed@onename.com>]

This is a long and involved thread - and very relevant - but I only want to
comment on one portion:

Eve wrote:

Thanks for the comments!  One more round is below.

>Jeff Hodges wrote:
>> "Eve L. Maler" wrote:
...

>>Question: In the above, I've kept the original order we've been using
>>in SAML for quite some time now, to wit,
>>{keyword}-{name_of_TC/proposer}.  But logically it may make more sense
>>to reverse these, as the TC name stays constant for everything a TC
>>produces, and the status will change.  What do people think?
>
> again, I discourage the {keyword} and suggest just draft-... so this
becomes
> moot.

Well, if everything really says "draft", the keyword could be left out
entirely because it doesn't add anything! :-)  But just in case, let's
play out my question and assume that my brilliant arguments above have
convinced you that we need to reflect a Committee Spec status with a
keyword.  Then, the order would seem to matter.  Is this preferable?

   draft-saml-bindings-05
   draft-saml-bindings-06
   cs-saml-bindings-01

Or is this?

   saml-draft-bindings-05
   saml-draft-bindings-06
   saml-cs-bindings-01

Drummond replies:

Classic database sorting decision. The latter makes the most sense. Imagine
searching long lists of TC docs from many TCs. To have them grouped by TC
seems a lot more intuitive than by status.

=Drummond