On 2024-12-01 12:11:55, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hi, > > > > Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things, > > > as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same > > > purpose? > > > > > > I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text. > > > > > > I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs. > > > > > > I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword. > > > > This summarises my preference perfectly, however, I'm not sure if we can > > enforce this consistenly. > > > > I originally voted for DEP-4711, but after seeing it in text (IMHO > > ugly), I went and changed my vote for DEP 4711, which is very nice on > > the eyes. However, that does not work URLs (nicely), and as you say, > > "DEP 8" is not easily searchable. > > > > So I fully agree that URLs and text should have different > > representations, somewhat agree about keywording, but then we're back at > > inconsistency, especially if everyone has to learn 3 rules about > > writing… > > To me it totally defeats the purpose on agreeing between MR13/14/15 if > we continue to spell it 3 different ways.
It does indeed. Note I didn't say "we should go with 2 or 3 ways", I was saying, I realise that each format (URL vs text) has a preferred representation. > Can we just pick one > spelling that works everywhere? > > This is what Holger elluded to, and made me personally change my > preferred option to DEP8 or DEP14 style of writing, which at most can > be spelled in small caps in places where large caps don't fit, such as > in shell commands, but there wouldn't more variations than that. It is probably the best option, indeed. But I still think "DEP5574" is worse to _read_ than "DEP 5574", or even "DEP-5574". Not that it doesn't mean, we shouldn't use it, was just expressing my preference. regards, iustin
