[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#108416: Format of short description should be mandated

[Do not CC me on mail to public lists, including mails to bugs against

On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 02:08:56AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I'll spell it for you:
> C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y
> I don't care about proper nouns, no more than I care about being able to
> break down the damn thing into grammatical components. For the sake of a
> consistent view of our packages, they should all follow some minimal
> rules for structure, so they don't look like a collection of crap.
> Initial caps is common in short fragments such as this. For example, you
> use initial caps for items in an outline, when those items generally do
> not make complete sentences, nor do they start with a proper noun.
> So take your english book back, and pay attention to my point.

How about I get out the Elementary Logic book?

You have not demonstrated how mandatory initial caps for all short
descriptions achieves any of the following:
  * a minimal set of rules for structure
  * not looking like crap
  * facilitation of breakdown into grammatical components

The case for initial caps -- which you personally like -- to achieve the above
goals is no stronger than the case for a terminal period -- which you
don't like.

You said we can save a byte by dropping the period; fine: I say we can
reduce ambiguity by not mandating an initial capital, letting it become
capitalized only when there is some other reason to do so.  My hunch is
that both these points come down to a matter of preference, and neither
substantially affects the end goal.

So cut it out with the non-sequiturs.

G. Branden Robinson                |     It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     authors.  They have every right to
branden@debian.org                 |     license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     like.  -- Craig Sanders

Attachment: pgppPzeFFTxRJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: