Hi Reto, Sorry, but there is no real impetus for change. The status quo has to be challenged for a change proposal of this nature, which it isn't with only single acronyms in any of the classes we are working on right now, even at this point with low change costs.
In addition, we are explicitly aiming not to be biased towards any of the potential implementations, and your proposal is based solely on fitting with your potential implementation. Thanks, Peter On 23 March 2015 at 21:16, Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org> wrote: > Right now we have negectable costs of changing, later it will mean an > incompatible change. > > So while I'm fully aware that "Projects using the library make their own > decisions", I nevertheless think that it is an advantage for Clerezza to > use the same convention as what will be its most important library and most > frequently used types. > > I suggest we have a vote and then stick to the decision. > > IIUC we have two proposals: > > a) Acronyms are treated like normal words, i.e. only the first character is > uppercased, this is what the google style guide recommends > > d) If possible acronyms are cased as they appear in the specs (default > casing), if they appear in a position where an uppercase first letter is > required (and this letter is not uppercase in the default casing) then only > this letter is uppercased, if they appear in a position where a lowercase > first letter is required then the whole acronym is lowercased. Where > obvious readability improvements result a different casing can be chosen. > > If I correctly described the proposals that have some support, we can have > a vote on which one to pick. > > Cheers, > Reto > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> +1 - if we end up with say SPARQLRDFXMLSerializer (which would be out >> of scope now!) then revisit - stay with current names for now. >> >> On 22 March 2015 at 20:56, Peter Ansell <ansell.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 21 March 2015 at 20:25, Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> You had then gone on to refer to the case of >> >>> possibly having multiple acronyms, which we do not have. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I started the discussion with the goal "to do the casing so we can >> apply it >> >> consistently everywhere" and I mentioned the situation of multiple >> acronyms >> >> in my first mail. >> > >> > At this point, our entire scope is what we have right now, and there >> > is no specific benefit to switching to 'acronyms as words' within that >> > scope. If the scope expands to those cases in the future, before a 1.0 >> > release, we can revisit the issue. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Peter >> >> >> >> -- >> Stian Soiland-Reyes >> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >>
