Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there!
> I recently noticed we have a lack of an official name definition.
>
> Is it:
>
> a) Emms (a name)
> b) emms (a program)
> c) Emms or emms (a word)
> d) EMMS (an acronym)
>
> I'd favor a), because that's easiest to read.
It may look good, but I don't think it's easy to read.
Emacs and Gnus are pronounced as ordinary words; EMMS isn't.
Spelling it like one makes it harder to read, not easier.
> Option b) has the normal problems associated with "keep it
> lowercase" at the beginning of sentences.
Yes. Also, this spelling makes it look like some old Unix tool.
> I also like c), as it does not emphasize the name-part too much.
I think this is the worst option. No matter what name we choose, it
_will_ be a name, and names should be capitalized the same everywhere.
Except of course in the names of mailing lists, in Lisp symbols, etc.
> But I don't really like d), because I don't like capital letters
> too much.
Sounds like you need to switch fonts. :-)
> Of course, d) emphasizes the "ee-em-em-es"-pronounciation.
Yes, and that's important. I guess we could always use Ëememes.
> What are your opinions?
I strongly favor all-caps EMMS, unless you're up for the umlaut. :-)
--
Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
Am I waiting for RMS to do this? --TTN.
_______________________________________________
Emms-help mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emms-help
