JDLReq repository name

Hello Richard,

We came up with JLreq-D (jlreq-d) as an alternative idea. What do you think? It has an hyphen but "simple-ruby" also has it…

- kida

> 2022/05/11 8:22、木田泰夫 <kida@mac.com>のメール:
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> Thank you for responding to the notes while I should have sent you a separate email :)
> 
> Thank you for your feedback. We initially had the name “JDLReq” as an abbreviation for “Japanese Digital Line Layout req”. What do you think of this one (jdlreq) as the repository name?
> 
> The reason we came up with the idea of placing “dlreq” in the front followed by the language name is here. Line layout rules for print had evolved in each (wider) region. The digital native version on the contrary is a part of internationalized text system. It is the Japanese language support in the internationased line layout system. So, I am fine with making the repository name alined with others, I still prefer as the title of the document placing the language name after. What do you think?
> 
> - kida
> 
>> 2022/05/11 1:54、r12a <ishida@w3.org>のメール:
>> 
>> 
>> Yasuo Kida wrote on 10/05/2022 15:02:
>>> Agreed (again) on the tentative and repository name - DLReq-J. Kida to discuss with Richard to create a repository.
>> 
>> Sorry to be late to comment on this.  I can't say i'm a fan of the abbreviation DLReq-J for the following reasons:
>> 
>> 1. it breaks the pattern of all other lreq repos, which list the language/script part followed by 'lreq'.  I would have less of a concern about JLReq-D, although...
>> 
>> 2. my personal preference would be to avoid the hyphen, because it makes it slower to type what i think will be an often used abbreviation.  (The hyphen key is the one i most often miss on my keyboard and have to search for.)
>> 
>> (I should probably note that i don't expect much confusion between JLReq and JDLReq - they look reasonably different, and certainly sound quite different when spoken.)
>> 
>> anyway, that's my 2p contribution to the discussion.  I guess i'm most concerned about point 1 above: it would be nice to maintain the pattern that is standard to all the other repos (except the indic iip, which i'm considering changing back to ilreq).
>> 
>> ri