Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Table renaming #423
Sooner or later we have to clean up the table names because it is a mess. We should have a uniform naming scheme and file extensions that make sense.
On the other hand we should avoid renaming files if not really needed because some applications depend on file names. Therefore I propose to plan in this issue which renames we want to do, and apply them all at once later when we have figured out a solution for this problem.
This is the tentative list of renames
referenced this issue
Oct 11, 2017
I think I'd like to try a naming scheme close to the RFC 5646 standard. I'm thinking about putting the braille specific tags like "g0" etc. under the so-called "extension subtags" or "private-use subtags". For example:
Oct 19, 2017
Here is some more explanation about the
The current state is that there are two sets of tables. The existing tables, and the tables with extension
I'm still unsure whether metadata changes should be mentioned in the NEWS.
So, what you basically want us to do is to make a .tbl table for each .ctb/utb/whatever table and include metadata and a single “include” rule in these tables, like the templates you originally made? We should probably then remove any metadata from the old tables to prevent confusion. What about the file names of the .tbl tables? Should they correspond to the current tables that they refer to, or do we want a more rigid naming scheme?
No I'm not saying that. The Danish tables for example have metadata in the original tables, and that's fine. We don't need to add a
The file names don't have to correspond. Like I said above the old tables should be renamed as little as possible (to avoid frustrations of users) and the new tables should be named according to the new naming scheme. The naming scheme is the topic of this Github issue.