On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > > > > changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> > > > > is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
> > > >
> > > > TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
> > > It goes away anyway. I like the 666, maybe the same people trying to ban
> > > Harry Potter will give lyx some publicity also :)
Interesting publicity opportunity...
> > Funny, but I"m going to have to agree with the others. If someone does
> > happen to see an open 666 inset, this'll give them a clue as to what it
> > does.
>
> Yes, the name of program features should be primarily influenced by
> clarity and intuitiveness.
>
> Whie "666 inset" is clever and it makes sense within the sub-culture of
> people who know that ERT means Evil Red Text which is a reference to TeX
> mode, it fails on both clarity and intuitiveness. Too many in-jokes
> and obscure references.
>
> The "TeX inset" on the other hand, is clear and intuitive.
In a DocBook document "TeX" won't make much sense.
On the other hand "Raw" may make more sense when used in both LaTeX and
DocBook documents. You could also just call it a "Markup" inset since
LaTeX and DocBook are markup languages.
Allan. (ARRae)
