Re: JDLReq repository name

hi Kida-san,

(I still have reservations about hyphens, but) i agree that this is 
better than the previous, and so i won't object further.

thanks,
ri


Yasuo Kida wrote on 17/05/2022 06:33:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>