[emms-help] Re: Emms, emms or EMMS?

[Daniel Brockman]

Jorgen Schaefer <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi there!
> I recently noticed we have a lack of an official name definition.
>
> Is it:
>
> a) Emms          (a name)
> b) emms          (a program)
> c) Emms or emms  (a word)
> d) EMMS          (an acronym)
>
> I'd favor a), because that's easiest to read.

It may look good, but I don't think it's easy to read.
Emacs and Gnus are pronounced as ordinary words; EMMS isn't.
Spelling it like one makes it harder to read, not easier.

> Option b) has the normal problems associated with "keep it
> lowercase" at the beginning of sentences.

Yes.  Also, this spelling makes it look like some old Unix tool.

> I also like c), as it does not emphasize the name-part too much.

I think this is the worst option.  No matter what name we choose, it
_will_ be a name, and names should be capitalized the same everywhere.
Except of course in the names of mailing lists, in Lisp symbols, etc.

> But I don't really like d), because I don't like capital letters
> too much.

Sounds like you need to switch fonts. :-)

> Of course, d) emphasizes the "ee-em-em-es"-pronounciation.
  
Yes, and that's important.  I guess we could always use Ëememes.

> What are your opinions?

I strongly favor all-caps EMMS, unless you're up for the umlaut. :-)

-- 
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>

    So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
    Am I waiting for RMS to do this?   --TTN.