7
$\begingroup$

Current name of tag is incomplete and could be changed since there is still some space (maximum is 25). It would be nice to have but it doesn't fit (just for one letter!).

Should we correct it? sounds better to me...

EDIT

To come to a final decision on this tag issue, a deadline is proposed: 31.03.2016. The answer with the most votes by 11:59 UTC on that date will be accepted as “community consensus”.

To put an emphasis on this question, the tag is added until 31.03.2016, 11:59 UTC.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Has the length limit changed or why did it end up being cut there? $\endgroup$ – otus Mar 2 '16 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ I have no idea, but being "attribute-based-encry" 21 letter long, I guess that simply that was the name entered by the first user of the tag. $\endgroup$ – cygnusv Mar 2 '16 at 16:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'd be tempted to shorten it to just attribute-based, although I suppose there's a risk that it might then also get used for some (just possibly marginally on-topic) questions about attribute-based access control. $\endgroup$ – Ilmari Karonen Mar 2 '16 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ Is it not possible to increase tag lengths? $\endgroup$ – d1str0 Mar 7 '16 at 9:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @d1str0 It's a global limit set by Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ – cygnusv Mar 7 '16 at 9:34
  • $\begingroup$ @cygnusv Seems otus' answer won by votes. I adapted and merged the tag synonyms accordingly. It would be cool if you’ld accept the answer by otus so the question is marked as solved. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Mar 31 '16 at 9:53
7
$\begingroup$

Unless I'm forgetting some other relevant term that shares the acronym, I would recommend changing it to ABE (i.e. ) instead.

We already have a lot of acronym-tags (even non-algorithm tags like ) and the tag excerpt + a tag synonym from the current spelling should guide people to using it.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Do people really know that abbreviation? Is it more common than the long form? For AES, RSA & co. the abbreviation if far more common and I sometimes have trouble recalling the long form. $\endgroup$ – CodesInChaos Mar 2 '16 at 17:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CodesInChaos, I don't know but... does it matter? You will see the meaning on mouse over anyway. I would prefer the full form, but not a partial one. $\endgroup$ – otus Mar 2 '16 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CodesInChaos Do people really know that abbreviation? – I‘ld say “yes”; especially when having done just a tick of research on the subject before dropping a question. At least, the short form “ABE” was the first thing I stumbled upon when diving into the subject back in the days. Sure, might just be me… nevertheless, I doubt many people will be mixing up the Prime Minister of Japan (or one of the other available options of interpretation) with something crypto-related. Besides, ABE would fit in terms of length – while tag synonyms could cover its back. $\endgroup$ – e-sushi Mar 3 '16 at 16:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @otus it does matter, especially for new user when trying to ask a question and searching the tag. They might (or not) realize it's abe. It could be solved by tag synonyms as e-sushi has mentioned though. $\endgroup$ – Andrew T. Mar 4 '16 at 7:24
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrewT., yes, the tag must show up when you type "attrib..." in the tag field, but that is why I suggested a synonym even in the answer. The suggestion of attribute-based seems okayish too, however, so this is not the only good option. $\endgroup$ – otus Mar 4 '16 at 7:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree. A tag excerpt and synonym should cover the bases and provide a better tag for users. $\endgroup$ – d1str0 Mar 7 '16 at 9:36
4
$\begingroup$

How about ? Seems clear enough and easy to auto-complete.

| |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Some options:

| |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

attribute-encryption would prevent it from being easily confused with attribute-based access control, and is more descriptive that abe in my opinion.

One downside is that it might be mistaken as encryption of attributes, instead of encryption based on attributes. That could be just as easily addressed as soon as you mose over it to see the full description.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .