Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!tank!shamash!nis!rjg
From: rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 miscellany
Message-ID: <5205@nis.mn.org>
Date: 17 Apr 89 18:49:36 GMT
References: <5191@nis.mn.org> <5192@nis.mn.org> <5006@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <5013@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <198@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM> <5028@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Reply-To: rjg@nis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Organization: National Information Services (Div. of NCS), Burnsville
Lines: 33

>[Actually, to nitpick back :-) perhaps the square brackets ought to have
>been removed.]
>
>But, heavens, Myrtle!! If some ELM users think to even "minor nitpick" about
>things like periods added, how are we going to fair as a group on the "real" 
>look-and-feel changes to ELM as they occur. As an ELM developer, it scares
>me to think about the consequences of enhancements that I and the others might
>do (or already have done)..

Any time you change the look and feel of something that's established,
you are going to get responses.  From both sides.  That's always a
given.

The whole issue of periods within brackets has gone on way longer than
it should.  From a linguistic point of view, they're legal.  From a
visual point of view they're considered out of place and unaesthetic.
Who's right?  Both.  What's the solution?  There are basically four.

	1) Return it to the way it was.  Brackets, no period.
	2) Remove the brackets, retain the punctuation.
	3) Completely change the entire visual aspects of Elm.
	4) Do nothing.

This will of course apply to anything that's perceived as a change,
whether it be radical or minor.  However, even a "minor" change that
stirs up an amount of controversy and discussion really isn't that
minor anymore.  Sigh.

-- 
       Robert J. Granvin               "You can always spot the IBM salesman:
   National Computer Systems            He's the one who is holding the bottle
        rjg@nis.mn.org                  of Vaseline..."
 {amdahl,hpda}!bungia!nis!rjg