15 Sep
2003
15 Sep
'03
11:26 a.m.
Erik Enge <erik@nittin.net> writes:
Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com> writes:
Obvious seems better than precise in this case.
Heh, yeah, exactly, and to my ear "rfc2822" is obvious whereas "internet message format" isn't. Ah, a classic problem this. :-) [...] So, is our plan so far: cl- for wrappers around libraries; proper nouns are preferable; RFCs use a shortned version of their title?
Sounds good so far, except that I don't know if that is too inflexible for rfcs. I tried to find some guidelines at sourceforge, but found none. Any ideas how they deal with this? And savvannah? Regards, Mario.