Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Tomas Chvatal
Hi all,
As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url in the
preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick doodle poll.

From parser perspective there is 0 difference but since there is vocal
proposition for URL instead of Url that is now replaced by spec-
cleaner.

I decided to create a poll where the majority will become default set
value. [1]

I will keep the doodle running until 14.8. and announce the results
afterwards and tweak spec-cleaner if other value wins.

I still think Url is fine as it is not URL in the "Uniform Resource
Locator" but just variable name.

Thanks for voting

Tom

[1] https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jan Engelhardt-4

On Thursday 2017-07-27 13:26, Tomas Chvatal wrote:
>
>I still think Url is fine as it is not URL in the "Uniform Resource
>Locator" but just variable name.

If you apply that variable name convention thoroughly, then
"BuildArch" should have been replaced by "Buildarch"
and "AutoReqProv" by "Autoreqprov" too.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Peter Simons
In reply to this post by Tomas Chvatal
Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]> writes:

 > I decided to create a poll where the majority will become default set
 > value. [1]

I sure hope that we'll stick to the current spelling "Url", because if the
spelling of that field changes then the subsequent update will modify
every single spec file that relies on spec-cleaner for post-processing.
That is a rather expensive consequence considering that this change has,
like, no actual effect whatsoever.

Please, let's not do this kind of bike-shedding all too frequently.

Best regards,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jan Ritzerfeld-3
In reply to this post by Jan Engelhardt-4
Am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2017, 16:40:00 CEST schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
> On Thursday 2017-07-27 13:26, Tomas Chvatal wrote:
> >I still think Url is fine as it is not URL in the "Uniform Resource
> >Locator" but just variable name.
>
> If you apply that variable name convention thoroughly, then
> "BuildArch" should have been replaced by "Buildarch"
> and "AutoReqProv" by "Autoreqprov" too.

Please! URL is an acronym, or more precisely an initialism, while your
examples are definitively not.

IMHO "Url" would be correct in case we want upper camel case for variable
names, e.g.:
https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/design-guidelines/
capitalization-conventions

Gruß
 Jan
--
Every purchase has it's price.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Johannes Meixner
In reply to this post by Tomas Chvatal

Hello,

On Jul 27 13:26 Tomas Chvatal wrote (excerpt):
> As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url
> in the preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick
> doodle poll.
>
> From parser perspective there is 0 difference but since there
> is vocal proposition for URL instead of Url that is now replaced
> by spec-cleaner.

Tag names are not case sensitive according to
http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html


> https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b

Therefore all spellings that are listed in that poll
   Url  URL  urL  uRl
plus all other case insensitive spellings are valid.

I think things like "Url vs URL" is another case where the
discussion moves away from what the actual root issue is
towards a marginal "how to enhance a tool in a specific way"
expert talk that is - as far as I see it - here even about
nitpicking patronizing without providing real usefulness.

What is the benefit for openSUSE users and contributors
to enforce a special openSUSE uniformity for spelling
things like "Url vs URL" regardless that both are valid?

I need to repeat myself:

What is more important for openSUSE:
Be open and accept diversity or enforce uniformity?


Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
--
SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard,
Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Martin Pluskal-2
On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 10:06 +0200, Johannes Meixner wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Jul 27 13:26 Tomas Chvatal wrote (excerpt):
> > As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url
> > in the preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick
> > doodle poll.
> >
> > From parser perspective there is 0 difference but since there
> > is vocal proposition for URL instead of Url that is now replaced
> > by spec-cleaner.
>
> Tag names are not case sensitive according to
> http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html
>
>
> > https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b
>
> Therefore all spellings that are listed in that poll
>    Url  URL  urL  uRl
> plus all other case insensitive spellings are valid.
>
> I think things like "Url vs URL" is another case where the
> discussion moves away from what the actual root issue is
> towards a marginal "how to enhance a tool in a specific way"
> expert talk that is - as far as I see it - here even about
> nitpicking patronizing without providing real usefulness.
>
> What is the benefit for openSUSE users and contributors
> to enforce a special openSUSE uniformity for spelling
> things like "Url vs URL" regardless that both are valid?
>
> I need to repeat myself:
>
> What is more important for openSUSE:
> Be open and accept diversity or enforce uniformity?
>
Hi

Well from perspective of maintaining multiple packages, and possibility
of future handover of maintanership of packages I would say that
uniformity should be strongly preferred.

Cheers

Martin

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Simon Lees-3


On 28/07/17 20:17, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 10:06 +0200, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Jul 27 13:26 Tomas Chvatal wrote (excerpt):
>>> As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url
>>> in the preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick
>>> doodle poll.
>>>
>>> From parser perspective there is 0 difference but since there
>>> is vocal proposition for URL instead of Url that is now replaced
>>> by spec-cleaner.
>>
>> Tag names are not case sensitive according to
>> http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html
>>
>>
>>> https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b
>>
>> Therefore all spellings that are listed in that poll
>>    Url  URL  urL  uRl
>> plus all other case insensitive spellings are valid.
>>
>> I think things like "Url vs URL" is another case where the
>> discussion moves away from what the actual root issue is
>> towards a marginal "how to enhance a tool in a specific way"
>> expert talk that is - as far as I see it - here even about
>> nitpicking patronizing without providing real usefulness.
>>
>> What is the benefit for openSUSE users and contributors
>> to enforce a special openSUSE uniformity for spelling
>> things like "Url vs URL" regardless that both are valid?
>>
>> I need to repeat myself:
>>
>> What is more important for openSUSE:
>> Be open and accept diversity or enforce uniformity?
>>
> Hi
>
> Well from perspective of maintaining multiple packages, and possibility
> of future handover of maintanership of packages I would say that
> uniformity should be strongly preferred.
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin
>
I agree, i'm all for open uniformity, which seems to be what were
achieving with this poll.

--

Simon Lees (Simotek)                            http://simotek.net

Emergency Update Team                           keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux                           Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B


signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Tomas Chvatal
In reply to this post by Tomas Chvatal
Tomas Chvatal píše v Čt 27. 07. 2017 v 13:26 +0200:

> Hi all,
> As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url in the
> preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick doodle poll.
>
> From parser perspective there is 0 difference but since there is
> vocal
> proposition for URL instead of Url that is now replaced by spec-
> cleaner.
>
> I decided to create a poll where the majority will become default set
> value. [1]
>
> I will keep the doodle running until 14.8. and announce the results
> afterwards and tweak spec-cleaner if other value wins.
>
> I still think Url is fine as it is not URL in the "Uniform Resource
> Locator" but just variable name.
>
> Thanks for voting
>
> Tom
>
> [1] https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b
Just to put the stats to perspective too:

scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^URL: *.spec |wc -l
48
scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^Url: *.spec |wc -l
18344

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Neal Gompa
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Tomas Chvatal píše v Čt 27. 07. 2017 v 13:26 +0200:
>> Hi all,
>> As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url in the
>> preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick doodle poll.
>>
>> From parser perspective there is 0 difference but since there is
>> vocal
>> proposition for URL instead of Url that is now replaced by spec-
>> cleaner.
>>
>> I decided to create a poll where the majority will become default set
>> value. [1]
>>
>> I will keep the doodle running until 14.8. and announce the results
>> afterwards and tweak spec-cleaner if other value wins.
>>
>> I still think Url is fine as it is not URL in the "Uniform Resource
>> Locator" but just variable name.
>>
>> Thanks for voting
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> [1] https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b
>
> Just to put the stats to perspective too:
>
> scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^URL: *.spec |wc -l
> 48
> scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^Url: *.spec |wc -l
> 18344

Can those numbers be relied on, given that the spec file gets
rewritten at commit and review/merge time?

--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Michal Kubecek
On Friday, 28 July 2017 14:17 Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> > Just to put the stats to perspective too:
> >
> > scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^URL: *.spec |wc -l
> > 48
> > scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^Url: *.spec |wc -l
> > 18344
>
> Can those numbers be relied on, given that the spec file gets
> rewritten at commit and review/merge time?

Those numbers mostly reflect the fact that spec-cleaner enforces "Url"
(now even in --minimal mode, in spite of its documentation), that our
vim template prefills "Url", that some reviewers actively change the
capitalization even in packages where it used to be written correctly
etc.

So the numbers can be (probably) relied upon to see what the current
state is. It would be a mistake to understand them as an image of what
package maintainers prefer.

However, it's quite clear from this discussion (and earlier discussions
on similar topics) that preferences of package maintainers do not matter
anymore, comfort and preferences of project/distribution maintainers and
reviewers are apparently considered more important.

                                                         Michal Kubeček

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Tomas Chvatal
In reply to this post by Neal Gompa
Neal Gompa píše v Pá 28. 07. 2017 v 08:17 -0400:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Just to put the stats to perspective too:
> >
> > scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^URL: *.spec |wc
> > -l
> > 48
> > scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^Url: *.spec |wc
> > -l
> > 18344
>
> Can those numbers be relied on, given that the spec file gets
> rewritten at commit and review/merge time?
>
Most probably. But none can blame spec-cleaner for that, because I
guess not all of you use it, esp since some hate it with quite passion
;-)

Tom

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Michal Kubecek
On Friday, 28 July 2017 14:32 Tomas Chvatal wrote:

> Neal Gompa píše v Pá 28. 07. 2017 v 08:17 -0400:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Just to put the stats to perspective too:
> > >
> > > scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^URL: *.spec |wc
> > > -l
> > > 48
> > > scarabeus@bugaboo: ~/tmp/openSUSE:Factory $ grep ^Url: *.spec |wc
> > > -l
> > > 18344
> >
> > Can those numbers be relied on, given that the spec file gets
> > rewritten at commit and review/merge time?
>
> Most probably. But none can blame spec-cleaner for that, because I
> guess not all of you use it, esp since some hate it with quite passion

For the record: I don't hate spec-cleaner, I consider it a useful tool
(not perfect, sure, but what is?) that I'm using myself from time to
time. What I do hate - and, yes, one could even say with passion - is
the idea that it (or anything else) should be used to enforce strict (or
even absolute) uniformity of specfile layout and formatting through the
whole distribution.

As long as spec-cleaner just stays available as a tool for whoever wants
to use it, as e.g. indent, I have no reason to hate it.

                                                          Michal Kubeček

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Tomas Chvatal
In reply to this post by Tomas Chvatal
Tomas Chvatal píše v Čt 27. 07. 2017 v 13:26 +0200:
>
> [1] https://beta.doodle.com/poll/9y6gfunm8bm8cz3b

Hi all,

one week left for voting. So far 34 people took their time to pick an
option.

Please if you want to influence this decision you have until 14.8.

Cheers

Tom

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Luigi Baldoni
In reply to this post by Tomas Chvatal
Tomas Chvatal wrote
As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url in the
preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick doodle poll.
I understand pet peeves and the need for consistency, but why is it so important?
Shouldn't, by the same token, also the <url> tag in OBS metadata be fully
uppercase?

Regards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jan Engelhardt-4
On Wednesday 2017-08-09 20:56, Luigi Baldoni wrote:

>Tomas Chvatal wrote
>> As per complains here that we should use URL rather than Url in the
>> preamble of the spec-files I've decided to create quick doodle poll.
>
>I understand pet peeves and the need for consistency, but why is it so
>important?
>Shouldn't, by the same token, also the <url> tag in OBS metadata be fully
>uppercase?

The OBSXML tags are *consistently* lowercase as is often the case with
HTML and XML. The specfiles on the other hand have their tags
*consistently* camelcased from the words they were formed from, like
{build architectures -> BuildArch}, {automatic requires and provides ->
AutoReqProv}, etc. Except for {uniform resource location -> Url} which
is the odd bit.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jan Ritzerfeld-3
Am Mittwoch, 9. August 2017, 22:56:16 CEST schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
> [...] The specfiles on the other hand have their tags
> *consistently* camelcased from the words they were formed from, like
> {build architectures -> BuildArch}, {automatic requires and provides ->
> AutoReqProv}, etc. Except for {uniform resource location -> Url} which
> is the odd bit.

As I already told you, "Url" is perfect upper camel case! See
https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/design-guidelines/
capitalization-conventions

Gruß
 Jan
--
Age is a high price to pay for maturity.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jan Engelhardt-4
On Thursday 2017-08-10 20:10, Jan Ritzerfeld wrote:

>Am Mittwoch, 9. August 2017, 22:56:16 CEST schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
>> [...] The specfiles on the other hand have their tags
>> *consistently* camelcased from the words they were formed from, like
>> {build architectures -> BuildArch}, {automatic requires and provides ->
>> AutoReqProv}, etc. Except for {uniform resource location -> Url} which
>> is the odd bit.
>
>As I already told you, "Url" is perfect upper camel case! See
>https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case

"url" is not a word in a linguistic sense, but an acronym; as for the scope of
Google's document, URL is in the same class as "IPv6", and so their
recommendations don't even apply, the result of which can be seen in, for
example, the Chromium source code - which is not Java, but let's use it for the
sake of argument - where they just use any casing they liked at the particular
moment.

rpm has had its own style for well over 12 years. Its documentation and
lots and lots of spec files from other distributions that were not
subject to format_spec_file have all come to terms to use URL. The
ruleset can be expressed as: lc, ucfirst, join, and *trim* (the latter
of which is unheard of in the Goog/MS doc). And with that, we get, for
the examples mentioned earlier:

. automatic requires and provides -> AutomaticRequiresAndProvides -> AutoReqProv
. uniform resource location -> UniformResourceLocation -> URL


[In other news, perhaps this is the time to patch rpm and rename it to
Homepage:, resolving the issue without having to argue about acronym
renditions.]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Neal Gompa
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thursday 2017-08-10 20:10, Jan Ritzerfeld wrote:
>
>>Am Mittwoch, 9. August 2017, 22:56:16 CEST schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
>>> [...] The specfiles on the other hand have their tags
>>> *consistently* camelcased from the words they were formed from, like
>>> {build architectures -> BuildArch}, {automatic requires and provides ->
>>> AutoReqProv}, etc. Except for {uniform resource location -> Url} which
>>> is the odd bit.
>>
>>As I already told you, "Url" is perfect upper camel case! See
>>https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case
>
> "url" is not a word in a linguistic sense, but an acronym;

Technically speaking, it's an initialism, since you (typically) speak
each letter as they represent something independent. Acronyms
typically get spoken slurred as a word. U-R-L vs saying "earl" :)

This is why "Url" bothers me so much. URL is a prominent and important
initialism, just like IPv6, etc.



--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jan Ritzerfeld-3
In reply to this post by Jan Engelhardt-4
Am Freitag, 11. August 2017, 00:02:38 CEST schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
> On Thursday 2017-08-10 20:10, Jan Ritzerfeld wrote:
> [...]
> >As I already told you, "Url" is perfect upper camel case! See
> >https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case
>
> "url" is not a word in a linguistic sense, but an acronym;

If you read my first reply to you in this thread, you would know that I am
aware of this and it is actually an initialism.

> as for the scope
> of Google's document, URL is in the same class as "IPv6", and so their
> recommendations don't even apply, [...]

Sorry. I don't get it. The section explicitly cares about acronyms or unusual
constructs like "IPv6" or "iOS". Just have a look at the first example: "XML
HTTP request". "XMLHTTPRequest" is the incorrect one and thus "URL".
Or the second one: "new customer ID". "newCustomerID" is the incorrect one and
thus "URL".
And even "supports IPv6 on iOS?". "supportsIPv6OnIOS" is the incorrect one and
thus "URL".

Gruß
 Jan
--
If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of Progress?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Poll about Url vs URL in RPM preamble

Jason Craig-3
On 08/11/2017 12:12 PM, Jan Ritzerfeld wrote:
> Am Freitag, 11. August 2017, 00:02:38 CEST schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
>> On Thursday 2017-08-10 20:10, Jan Ritzerfeld wrote:
>> [...]
>>> As I already told you, "Url" is perfect upper camel case! See
>>> https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.3-camel-case
>>

...

> Sorry. I don't get it. The section explicitly cares about acronyms or unusual
> constructs like "IPv6" or "iOS". Just have a look at the first example: "XML
> HTTP request". "XMLHTTPRequest" is the incorrect one and thus "URL".
> Or the second one: "new customer ID". "newCustomerID" is the incorrect one and
> thus "URL".
> And even "supports IPv6 on iOS?". "supportsIPv6OnIOS" is the incorrect one and
> thus "URL".

I see that the linked style guide (this is a question of style as tag
names are case insensitive) is from Google for Java. Since SUSE is not
Google and RPM spec files are not Java, I don't see any reason why this
style guide is applicable. Even if the linked guide is used just to say
"what camel case is", there are other people who think acronyms and/or
initialisms can/should be all caps in camel case. In fact this Fedora
document
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview 
has the URL tag name as all uppercase.

Is there an OpenSUSE document (a style guide) that says spec file tag
names should be in upper camel case, and further clarifies that upper
camel case means that initialisms and acronyms should be rendered like
"Url"? If so, then so be it, otherwise I think the discussion here is
what should such a document say.

--
Jason Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12
Loading...