Kazunobu Kuriyama wrote:
[snip]
In that case, replace back-xlib with "back-x11". :) It'd still be X-
and
XIM-specific, though, so I think my comment still applies.
I've already finished modifying that part of the code, which now uses
a
tentative default name. Once the name is given, I can change it in a
few
seconds. So I'm not reluctant to change it, but...
Is it necessary even for end-users to be conscious of something
specific
to the implementation behind them?
Regardless of the name, they have to be conscious of XIM specifics to
know which the possible values for the default are.
I think they prefer shoter names without
any jargon, though it saves only 3 characters.
OTOH, they should be long enough to give sufficient information about
what they mean. After the (slight) GSFontAntiAlias mess, I've thought
about this, and I've come to the conclusion that if a default only
applies in a certain context (eg. only when using some backends), or if
the interpretation or set of legal values changes with context (again,
different backends...), it should have a name that tells you in which
context it applies.