fixed it!
I'd rather a technically oriented site like github be "unrealistic" and correct and instructive, than foolish and wrong and misleading. Are you really saying it's better to use the wrong term because github users might not understand the more widely known correct term?
Just how does leading the user on a wild goose chase looking up the definition of "MIME Type," causing them to waste their time and misunderstand the error message, when it's really a file name extension (a term which more people understand anyway), help the user achieve their goals?
The bottom line is that github disallowing "MIME Types" or "file name extensions" in user names, just like a bank disallowing "select" and "drop" and "from" and "null" and "delete" and "bobby" and "tables" in passwords, is a symptom of a much larger more terrible problem, and whoever wrote that stupid error message instead of fixing the underlying bug that caused it has much worse problems than poor English language writing skills.
The bug affected Gitlab, not GitHub.
It's a very odd error. Apparently .nro is a file extension used by the Nintendo Switch video game console; .o is obviously the output of compilers, so I'm not sure why my username wasn't rejected. Maybe it would be if I tried to register now.
It seems pretty obvious - based on the failed username in question, and to someone with fairly deep technical knowledge - that they mean anything they consider a file extension. Which is not an excuse for this marvel of awful UI slapped on top of a poorly-thought-out workaround (for some unknown vuln (that's been patched for over 2 months and is still private? quite strange for an "open" company eh?).
Edit: as for what's actually used, looks like [2] it's the ruby mime-types gem [3], which is based on both IANA registry and various other recommendations [4], AIUI.
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xht...
[2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/65954/...
Registrants can include info like file extensions with their registration, but those extensions are not registered (not by IANA, anyway).
And indeed, what IANA registers there is media types, so I've only mentioned associations. I think it still works for a-dub's argument, that it's obvious (though I'd word it differently, such as it being a reasonable guess) that if "MIME type format" is mentioned and "mov" is shown as an example, what's actually meant is filename extensions associated with registered and/or otherwise known media types (which turned out to be the case).
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/xml
[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838.html#section-4.12
I don't know exactly what list GitLab is using (because, as has been mentioned, there's no central registry of file extensions), but there are many extensions more obscure and less obvious than even mov, which would further obfuscate the actual problem.
Yes. I am well aware that certain software, such as Windows, MimeMagic, or Apache, do include their own lists. That is not a "registry" and in fact you will likely find that every such list is either identical to, a fork of, or incompatible with every other such list.
Whether you call such a list a registry or not is fairly trivial, I think. Their web server uses such a mapping, and for some reason usernames with suffixes on that list confused something. Call it a registry, or a mapping, or a list, the meaning of the statement is the same, and I don't think it prevents most people from understanding what's going on.
In this case, a registry would be a mapping, however a mapping is not a registry. A registry is the single, centralized place from which you can look up registrations, to guarantee that there are no conflicting records. Literally none of that is (or can be, at this point) true of file extensions.
Which is definitively not what is meant there. But I think it shows that Gitlab is not a company I'd go to if I wanted linguistic precision.
So, I find strange this meaning that you give for a "draft" = that it is something that has connotation of throwing away when building the final product.
I think you are confusing a "draft" with a "sketch" and they are not the same.
I googled the term "draft" and here is what I found:
> "a version of something (such as a document) that you make before you make the final version" [1]
> "A preliminary version of a piece of writing." [2]
While "sketch" means:
> "a rough drawing representing the chief features of an object or scene and often made as a preliminary study" [3]
> "A rough or unfinished version of any creative work." [3]
> "A rough or unfinished drawing or painting, often made to assist in making a more finished picture." [4]
In the case of sketch I see some keywords like "preliminary study" or "assist" or "unfinished version" that indicates that the sketch will not be the final product.
So while it is true that a Draft could be thrown away if someone has new/better/difference ideas while working on it, it does not seem to imply that a Draft should be thrown when building the final product.
As far as I understand it is more that a draft will evolve into a final product or might be abandoned.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draft
[2] https://www.lexico.com/definition/draft
As a native English speaker, the first time I encountered the word 'draft' was at primary school. We used it to describe a piece of writing where presentation was not the focus, instead, content and accuracy in terms of spelling, grammar, and punctuation would be the focus. Once the drafts were complete, we would 'copy these up' in our neatest handwriting.
However, if I prepare a 'draft' of some document or other for my boss, I expect it to be essentially an unapproved version of a final document, perhaps needing some minor modifications before release, but also perhaps not.
Although personally, I would use 'sketch' to mean something disposable which illustrates a more perfect version, my grandmother is an artist, and she refers to the initial drawings she makes on the canvas as 'sketches', which she then paints over in more detail.
Essentially, I don't think there's a big difference between draft and sketch - both could (in my opinion) represent either a version which will be discarded or which will be developed further.
Overall, I think here, the 'Work In Progress' label is the clearest and least likely to be interpreted differently by different users.
In a highly technical environment this is the kind of work I associate with drafting, but not necessarily with the word draft.
The wikipedia page for "Draft" has a veritable smorgasbord of different things that are considered "Drafts"[2], which kind of illustrates that getting pedantic about the definition of the word is losing proposition.
But a native english speakers as well, I agree with you, that the everyday colloquial definition of the word "draft" is an incomplete piece of work that needs further refinement before it can be considered complete or final.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafter [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft
That is it for me too and why I think this change is so annoying.
WIP means something is being worked on. [0]
Draft can mean the same, but it also has a bunch of other possible meanings. Note that if you search in both of your sources, you'll find "sketch" as an explaination. It can mean the same, but it can also mean a bunch of other things. It's a strictly worse name.
A draft in the visual arts (drawing, painting), is typically abandoned, like a sketch. Perhaps it uses a different medium to the final version, and in any case can't easily be adapted.
A draft in writing is typically incrementally improved, or at least we think of it that way now that we write on computers. We don't need to start again even for substantial changes like adding a new paragraph.
Draught (sounds the same as draft) is the wind through a crack or a type of beer. A door or window might be draughty but a beer wont.
Drought looks similar but sounds like "drowt" and is what you get when there is a long period of time without rain.
Be careful with draft, draught and drought!
I think it's only software developers who urge others to first write a draft, then throw it away and start working on the real thing. Usually, a draft precedes the "real" version and it's a status attached to something. Eventually, a "draft" becomes "published" or something similar.
Authors, scientists, email writes, report creators, movie/music producers all create drafts that (maybe) eventually become the real thing, I don't think many of them throw away the draft but rather work on the draft until it's not a draft anymore.
Interesting. What industry does it that way?
I guess I'm dense, but I actually thought it's about users such as Mr. Joe R Text/Plain. When I read about "mov" in the actual issue, then it became clear.