Did this great idea ever gain traction?
I seem to remember it was suggested around the time that the OP_RETURN saga kicked off.
I think that we agreed that such a scheme would be better handled at the UI level.
I was happy to have it handled at the client side rather than embedded within the protocol. Though there are some disadvantages.
The success of storing domain/long asset information in the description hinges on a couple of factors:
1) A de facto standard that is agreed upon by the community and the standard centralized somewhere. We haven't made any progress yet regarding this.
2) Asset issuance fees within Counterparty would have a better long term solution - something along the lines of floating fees.
The disadvantages I see having it done purely at the client level is that:
a) Uniqueness of the long name in the description cannot be enforced.
b) Tiered pricing based upon the long description cannot be performed as the protocol is agnostic to the description.