NarekAproyan / openrtb

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/openrtb
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
0 stars 0 forks source link

Unnecessary Attribute Name Changes #24

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
are several attribute and object names that have been altered from the OpenRTB 
Mobile specification for seemingly stylistic preferences.  However, this 
creates needless points of backward incompatibility for exchanges and bidders 
that are presently operating.  A couple instances of this have been referenced 
in other issues where it seemed more appropriate to mention them there.  Here 
are the rest; please restore them:

- “site.sitecat” should be restored to “site.cat”.
- “app.appcat” should be restored to “app.cat”.
- “user.gen” should be restored to “user.gender”, and restore the 
“O” value option.
- “bidset” object should be restored to “seatbid”.
- “bid.id” should be restored to “bid.impid”.
- “bid.campaignid” should be restored to “bid.cid”.
- “bid.creativeid” should be restored to “bid.crid”.

On the app and site category, I know there are other levels of category usage 
proposed for site and app, but it is sufficiently clear that an unqualified 
“cat” pertains to the scope of its object (e.g., site or app as opposed to 
page, etc.).  I noticed that object IDs have all been changed to a similar 
unqualified style from the previous spec, which I do support (even though 
it’s backward incompatible).

On the gender values, the allowed values were also changed in an unnecessary 
way.  Aside from “M” and “F”, the OpenRTB Mobile specification had 
“O” for “other” which is a useful classification.  The 2.0 spec dropped 
it and added “U” for “unknown” which is redundant with respect to not 
passing the attribute.

On the ID in the bid object, in all other objects that have an “id” 
attribute, this ID pertains to the object itself.  In this case, however, the 
ID is referring to the ID of a different object; an “imp” object.  It would 
not only improve backward compatibility to restore it to “impid”, but it 
would be a lot less confusing.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jim.butler%nexage.com@gtempaccount.com on 22 Jul 2011 at 9:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by jim.butler%nexage.com@gtempaccount.com on 22 Jul 2011 at 9:23