Le sam. 03 mars 2018 à 04:57:33 , Bastien Guerry <b...@gnu.org> a envoyé ce message: > The rationale for using org.org (which, I agree, sounds a bit > childish) is that this is the current convention for naming GNU > manual is [package-name].[extension]. > > See emacs.texi, gnus.texi, calc.texi, etc. > > If using Org becomes popular, it makes sense to have emacs.org, > gnus.org, calc.org but I find emacs-manual.org, gnus-manual.org > calc-manual.org to be cumbersome. > > Ok, we're not there yet, I know :) > > But still: RMS recently raised the question on emacs-devel of > whether using .rst for the GNU documentation would be better, > so using .org for this purpose is not entirely hypothetical. > > What people think? Let's just collect votes on this. > > +1 for org.org
I agree. An expression that is both justified by a convention and that sounds silly or childish, is like a slogan that everybody has fun to repeat: "org.org" is terrific ! +1 for org.org Jo.
