Re: Name of "simple text"

[Gavin Smith]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:19:30AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > "Simple content" seems like an immediate improvement.  "Basic
> > paragraphal content" is too long.  "Simple inline content" might be ok
> > (where "inline" has the same meaning as HTML).  "Horizontal content"
> > is an alternative.
> 
> Inline is used, indeed, for @inline* commands in that sense and in other
> parts of the code.  "Simple inline content" and "Plain inline content"
> then?  


I replaced "simple text" with "basic inline", with "inline" serving
as an adjective rather than a noun.

I thought that "basic" implies it is a base for more complicated constructs
to build upon.

The "plain text" class is closer to text anyway, so is not so confusingly
named.

> An issue with content is that it is already used for table of
> contents, and also for the 'contents' in the Texinfo tree.  But it is
> not that problematic, text is also used for different things.

You may find it hard to believe but "content" and "contents" are
completely different words in English,  and unlikely to be confused
by a native speaker.  I didn't use the word "content", anyway.