On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:34:06PM -0400, Shem Multinymous wrote: > 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?
It would be great compromise! Please please please! -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2 - 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/