Skip to content

Review names of record types #835

Description

@fidothe

The use of record types as a thing that users will interact with seems to be increasing. There are a number of new types proposed and we should review their names to ensure that we are using a coherent naming scheme for all spec-defined record types, and that the names are good enough - that they explain what they are, and aren't too unwieldy.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    EditorialMinor typos, wording clarifications, example fixes, etc.PR PendingA PR has been raised to resolve this issuePRG-easyCategorized as "easy" at the Prague f2f, 2024PRG-optionalCategorized as "optional for 4.0" at the Prague f2f, 2024XQFOAn issue related to Functions and Operators

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions