Received: from localhost (IDENT:root@hectic-1.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.68.203]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA58409 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:47:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu) Received: from alumni.caltech.edu (lockhart@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA18141; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:59:07 GMT Message-ID: <38F2B11B.5EE52DF@alumni.caltech.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:59:07 +0000 From: Thomas Lockhart X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Eisentraut CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200004/29 > Why is someone (presumably from southern California) always changing all > mentions of "PostgreSQL" in the documentation to "Postgres"? Wouldn't it > be more productive the other way around? :) The document conventions are mentioned in the introductory section on "Notation". I'm trying for a consistant presentation within the documents, and had settled on "Postgres" as a readable, pronounceable form for our project. I try to keep "PostgreSQL" for introductory sections and book and chapter headings. I suppose that those conventions could be up for discussion (as is everything else wrt Postgres^HSQL) but I'm not sure that changing this particular convention buys us anything other than heavier docs. To my mind, this s/w is the only survivor of the Postgres family, and there is no need to distinguish it from other, older, relatives. - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California