| 1 |
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 22:28, James Harlow wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 10:08:28PM +0800, Mike Gardiner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I would like to add support for accessibility |
| 4 |
> > under a USE flag named either, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > o accessibility, or |
| 7 |
> > o a11y |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I prefer the former, but would like opinions on which word to choose |
| 10 |
> > before it gets added. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> accessibility - the only benefit of 'a11y' is that it takes less time |
| 13 |
> to type, and as it will only be set once (in make.conf), this is drowned |
| 14 |
> out by the fact that 'a11y' is pretty meaningless (as shown by the fact |
| 15 |
> you decided to spell it out in the top of the email). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Some of us like to set use variables more flexibly than once in |
| 18 |
make.conf (where 4 letters really is easier to type, saves my soon-to-be |
| 19 |
RSI). And my 'spelling out' was merely as an explanation. This notation |
| 20 |
is commonly used for i18n and m17n, but not everyone knows that. For |
| 21 |
most devs, they'll find accessibility support under a configure flag |
| 22 |
like '--enable-a11y'. Since I was discussing accessibility as an option, |
| 23 |
it seemed like a timely introduction. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
My arguments are simply 'accessibility' makes more sense, is more |
| 26 |
readable, whereas 'a11y' is shorter. 2 for the former at this stage. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Mike |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives