Re: Unifying name for Plugins/Extensions/etc.

["Andrew Conkling" <andrew conkling gmail com>]

On Dec 21, 2007 6:03 AM, Denis Washington <dwashington gmx net> wrote:

> Changing terminology is always a bigger undertaking than
> people think it is, and the end result is usually far less
> comprehensive than people anticipated.  Witness:
>
> * We recommend using "folder" over "directory", but the
> term "directory" is still very prominent.
> * We changed "shade" to "roll up", but among the shaders
> I know, none of them ever say "roll up".
> * We recommend against using "combo box".  As if.
> * We recommend using "point to" instead of "hover".  Yet
> another losing battle.
>
> I could go on.  In general, I think "extension" is a far
> better word than "plugin".  The question is, is it worth
> the bound-to-partially-fail effort?  (Then again, it seems
> we're partially failing at maintaining the status quo.)

I understand that many recommendations are only partly followed, but at
least recommending "extension" over "plugin" is better than still
recommending the latter. Maybe we could draw attention to the
terminology recommendation by making their application a GNOME goal?

So it seems that everyone prefers "Extension" to "Plugin" or any others, in theory anyway. But the implementation or change would be significant, perhaps not even worthwhile.

But if the currently recommended terminology of "plugin" isn't being observed or enforced, wouldn't it at least be worthwhile to change the documentation to the preferred word? And then we could file bugs and try to unify the terminology?

Or am I being a bit too idealistic?

Cheers,
Andrew Conkling