Hi,
On 4/12/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen
> objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous:
>
> "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using
> the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging.
> Hence:
> s/charge_rate/rate/; s/charge/capacity/"
>
> But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner
> if we'll drop "capacity" at all.
I stand with Shem on this one. The people behind the SBS specification
seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still
avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for
confusion.
I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets
woudl make of it...
With fixed-units files, having *_energy and *_capacity isn't too clear
either... Nor is it consistent with SBS, since SBS uses "capacity" to
refer to either energy or charge, depending on a units attribute.
As a compromise, how about using "energy" and "charge" for quantities,
and "charging" (i.e., a verb) when referring to the operation?
BTW, tp_smapi uses "charge" and "charging" interchangeably; that was
a mistake.
Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
