RE: Rename `eww' to `web'

[Drew Adams]

> >> make it easier for the user by calling it someting obvious rather
> >> than the more cryptic.  Using 'eww' may be considered 'cute', but
> >> it certainly isn't 'natural'.
> >> ...
> >> Using names which are as 'natural' and reflect purpose as much
> >> as possible will help and certainly won't make things worse.
> 
> DA> +1.  There is really little excuse for such names as Emacs commands.
> DA> A command name should preferably be something that `apropos' can
> DA> help with.  In general it should have components that are
> DA> recognizable keywords.
> 
> I think the package author should decide this.  The "natural" name you
> suggest is bland and generic.  Do you really want to use a text editor
> named "text-editor" and a web browser named "web-browser"?

No one suggested that.  What "natural" name did you think I suggested?

> eww is just as good as Chrome or Firefox/Netscape/Mozilla or Lynx or...

Richard responded adequately to that claim.  Of course, with enough
recognition any name becomes recognizable! ;-)  "EMACS", for instance.

> Or, in Emacs land, let's take helm, or gnus, or eieio, or...

Have you been following?  Those are package names, not command names.

 EIEIO: a package
 `eieio-browse': a command

 Icicles: a package
 `icicle-complete-keys': a command

Again, `apropos' can help a user find a well named command, one
whose name suggests something about what it does.

But by all means, the package name can well be something that stands
out, in particular for a web search.  That can help, once there is
some general recognition.

On the other hand, "Emacs" already stands out in a search for web
browsers.  If you were looking for an Emacs web browser today (and
there are some), I'd be willing to bet that you would search for
"emacs web browser" or some such.  Why so prosaic and unimaginative?
Because that's what works.