884785 - Finalize the file extension name to l20n.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(L20n :: General, defect, P2)

Description

[Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf]]

We're currently using .lol in most places and .l20n in some others.

We should decide on what do we want to do for 1.0

Pros of lol:
 - sounds awesome
 - is an inner joke
 - that can be rationalized into Localizable Object Lists

Pros of l20n:
 - sounds more formal
 - reduces the number of naming schemes we introduce
 - l20n project -> l20n format (html->html, xml->xml, javascript->js, java->java)

I would argue that for the reason of introducing a formal file format for the web, .l20n ext looks better, but it's a matter of taste.

Other stakeholders - argue and cast your votes pls

Comment 1

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

My mind as German and founding father is set on "lol".

Comment 2

[chris hofmann]

in the past 4 character file name extensions were definitely a bad idea.  I think we are freed from all those restrictions now, but it still might be a good idea to follow that guideline.  I'd also vote for the 3 letter extension.

Comment 3

[Robert Kaiser]

If I would have a vote, I'd be for Localizable Object Lists (.lol) as well.

Comment 4

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

I'd like to offer an alternative view and cast my vote for .l20n.

DTD, properties, po, xliff *and* L20n are all localization object lists.  They're lists of object which represent translations.  I don't think there is anything special about the L20n syntax that makes it a good candidate to claim the .lol extension.

If we were to provide an abstraction layer for localization format (think Silme) and serialize the abstracted data into files, then these files should be called LOL, localization object lists.

This is why I believe we need a different name.

* * *

Let's take a step back:  why do we even need an extension?  For proper functioning, all we need is a text/plain MIME type really, and the file can be called whatever.  It can be pl.lol, pl.l20n, pl.res or even simply pl, with no extension.

I think the main reason of having a file name are text editors and other infrastructure tools.  With an extension, external software can tell what format it's supposed to expect and highlight the syntax or use the right parser for the job.

Hence, my vote goes for .l20n.  It's consistent and self-explanatory.  It doesn't even need documentation. I want to be able to use the following line in my Vim config;

  autocmd BufRead *.l20n set filetype=l20n

Comment 5

[Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf]]

Chris, Axel, Robert - does what Stas wrote affect your position?

I'm slightly in favor of .l20n mostly because I see no downside of that choice and it's self-explanatory (while .lol connected to l20n project requires knowledge), but I'll take either of them, no big deal.

Comment 6

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

I disagree with stas' analysis, I don't think any but l20n feature a localization entry that resembles an object. To me the distinction comes from having programming artifacts, and not just properties or meta data.

Comment 7

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to Staś Małolepszy :stas from comment #4)
> Let's take a step back:  why do we even need an extension?

We will need both an extension and a MIME type because file managers want to list a "file type" and connect some software to open that type with - and we hopefully will have tools at some point hat will enable easy editing of this format.

And the vim line is just as good with s/l20n/lol/ (in the first of both places), really makes no difference.

I understand some of Staś's reasoning, but it doesn't really weaken my opinion there.

(And Silme really should use "rotfl" or so if its intermediate format can't be the actual lol format - given that it's a superset of what any other formats can do, it might actually make sense. Still, if not, I guess I or even Axel with his special gifts need to give you a good description of what "rotfl" could stand for...))

Comment 8

[Pascal Chevrel (relman team) -> :pascalc]

Note that .lol is an already existing extension for the lolcode language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCODE
http://www.fileinfo.com/extension/lol

I vote for l20n since there is prior art in the lol ecosystem and we don't want people to be confused.

Comment 9

[Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf]]

Chris: can you lead the final decision making round? We seem to hit a stalemate and I don't know who can we ask for opinion and how to finalize the decision, but I'd like to do that soon.

Comment 10

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

So I don't think LOL or ROTFL are witty.  I like lolcats as part of the Internet culture, but I think that this time around we should keep it serious.

For instance, I'm not sure how to read a tweet like this one:

    https://twitter.com/apostololeg/status/327363355494998016

what's the #lol hashtag for?  Is this person laughing at it?

Comment 11

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

I personally prefer .l20n over .lol, and I don't see a problem with it being 4 characters long (we're using .properties).

Comment 12

[Matjaz Horvat [:mathjazz]]

If .lol is already taken, I don't think we should repeat the mistake of webL10n's .properties and use the same extension for a different format.

Also, if we've been able to use a non-3-character .properties extension for years, we shouldn't worry about the extension length too much.

I also think it's better to introduce just one new name instead of two (X, X.org, X.js, .X), not to confuse people. If we're set on L20n as the name of the project/technology, my vote goes to .l20n.

Comment 13

[Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf]]

With two open bugs blocking 1.0 release, both non-code related, I'd like to break this stalemate with a vote.

This bug has been open for three months and we collected all opinions we could. None of them seem to make either option absolutely not acceptable.
I believe that at this point decision is absolutely arbitrary and a matter of preference/taste.

Voters are people subscribed to this bug:
 - Pascal
 - Matjaz
 - Pike
 - Chofmann
 - Stas 
 - Gandalf
 - Kairo
 - Flod

Comment 14

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

My vote goes to .l20n

Comment 15

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

.lol

Comment 16

[Matjaz Horvat [:mathjazz]]

.l20n

Comment 17

[Pascal Chevrel (relman team) -> :pascalc]

.l20n

Comment 18

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

.l20n

Comment 19

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

jfkthame added a new contestant: "Resources Of Foreign Languages"

Comment 20

[Robert Kaiser]

.lol

Comment 21

[Jeff Beatty [:gueroJeff]]

.l20n

Comment 22

[Gordon P. Hemsley [:GPHemsley]]

FWIW, I'd vote .l20n over .lol (though I'm not sure I truly like either).

Comment 23

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

Gandalf, you didn't vote yourself.  What is your take?  And can we close this bug today?

Comment 24

[Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf]]

I vote for .l20n because of:
 - clean tie to L20n project
 - no insider-joke in public API
 - http://filext.com/file-extension/LOL
 - http://www.solvusoft.com/en/file-extensions/file-extension-lol/

It also seems like third party libs are picking up l20n name:
 - https://github.com/fernandogmar/L20n-RequireJS

Comment 25

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

l20n it is.

I fought hard and long, it's good.

Comment 26

[chris hofmann]

gandalf and stas,  you know what to do.

Comment 27

[Staś Małolepszy :stas]

Thanks, Axel and Chofmann.

I filed bug 937544 to actually rename existing files.