icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Tobias Bading]

Hi.

Not having read all comments in Bug#61496 fully, I’d like to suggest a minor
doc improvement nevertheless :-) — please mention icon-title-format in the
doc string of frame-title-format. I’m in the process of migrating from Emacs
26 to 29 and was a little confused about the title of frames changing when
they are minimized or restored. It took me a minute to find
icon-title-format because I was looking for something named frame.*title or
title.*frame. English isn’t my native language so I spare you a patch, maybe
something along the lines of

    The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
    ‘icon-title-format’.

Thank you.

Tobias

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 20:40:51 +0200
> From: Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de>
> 
> Not having read all comments in Bug#61496 fully, I’d like to suggest a minor
> doc improvement nevertheless :-) — please mention icon-title-format in the
> doc string of frame-title-format. I’m in the process of migrating from Emacs
> 26 to 29 and was a little confused about the title of frames changing when
> they are minimized or restored. It took me a minute to find
> icon-title-format because I was looking for something named frame.*title or
> title.*frame.

I guess your search didn't include "i frame title RET" in Info?

>     The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
>     ‘icon-title-format’.

That's inaccurate, because there are also 'title', 'name' and
'explicit-name' frame parameters, which affect the frame's title in
various situations.  (The ELisp manual, by contrast, has it all
described.)

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Tobias Bading]

On 03.05.23 20:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I guess your search didn't include "i frame title RET" in Info?

Yes and no. Looking for something customize-option’able I searched in the
“Emacs” info node first, not in the “Elisp” node.

>>     The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
>>     ‘icon-title-format’.
>
> That's inaccurate, because there are also 'title', 'name' and
> 'explicit-name' frame parameters, which affect the frame's title in
> various situations.  (The ELisp manual, by contrast, has it all
> described.)

Yes, the manual was helpful in the end. A link from the doc string of
frame-title-format to icon-title-format would have been nice because I had
an ancient (setq frame-title-format "Emacs: %b") in my ~/.emacs, so that’s
what I checked first.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de> writes:

>     The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

X does not use the term ``minimized''.  We prefer just ``iconified''.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Tobias Bading]

On 04.05.23 02:12, Po Lu wrote:
>>     The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> X does not use the term ``minimized''.  We prefer just ``iconified''.

I’m afraid “we” includes me — because I’m old. So old in fact that I
(barely) remember mwm being able to turn top-level windows into icons
and back. Those were the days… ;-)

But I don’t actually remember the last window manager I used that used this
feature. Might actually have been mwm. The last decade or so GNOME 2 and
then MATE minimized my windows into the Window List panel applet. So I can
see the window’s title changing when it is minimized or restored, which is a
rather uncommon “feature” in this desktop environment.

PS: there’s also “shaded” these days… :-p

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de> writes:

> On 04.05.23 02:12, Po Lu wrote:
>>>     The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> X does not use the term ``minimized''.  We prefer just
>> ``iconified''.
>
> I’m afraid “we” includes me — because I’m old. So old in fact that I
> (barely) remember mwm being able to turn top-level windows into icons
> and back. Those were the days… ;-)
>
> But I don’t actually remember the last window manager I used that used
> this
> feature. Might actually have been mwm. The last decade or so GNOME 2
> and
> then MATE minimized my windows into the Window List panel applet. So I
> can
> see the window’s title changing when it is minimized or restored,
> which is a
> rather uncommon “feature” in this desktop environment.
>
> PS: there’s also “shaded” these days… :-p

These are all reported under the Iconic state, and as such that is the
terminology we use in Emacs.

So let's please not use the term "minimize".  Thanks.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Tobias Bading]

On 04.05.23 06:38, Po Lu wrote:
> So let's please not use the term "minimize".  Thanks.

With another not-my-first-language warning, how about this?

diff --git a/src/xdisp.c b/src/xdisp.c
index 4384754439..737c629286 100644
--- a/src/xdisp.c
+++ b/src/xdisp.c
@@ -36613,7 +36613,9 @@ syms_of_xdisp (void)
 
 This variable has the same structure as `mode-line-format', except that
 the %c, %C, and %l constructs are ignored.  It is used only on frames for
-which no explicit name has been set (see `modify-frame-parameters').  */);
+which no explicit name has been set (see `modify-frame-parameters').
+
+A similar template for iconified frames may be defined by icon-title-format.  */);
 
   DEFVAR_LISP ("icon-title-format", Vicon_title_format,
     doc: /* Template for displaying the title bar of an iconified frame.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Tobias Bading]

> With another not-my-first-language warning, how about this?

Sorry, with ` and ' of course, so something like:

$ git diff -U6 src/xdisp.c
diff --git a/src/xdisp.c b/src/xdisp.c
index 4384754439..6b2290b8e0 100644
--- a/src/xdisp.c
+++ b/src/xdisp.c
@@ -36610,13 +36610,15 @@ syms_of_xdisp (void)
   DEFVAR_LISP ("frame-title-format", Vframe_title_format,
     doc: /* Template for displaying the title bar of visible frames.
 \(Assuming the window manager supports this feature.)
 
 This variable has the same structure as `mode-line-format', except that
 the %c, %C, and %l constructs are ignored.  It is used only on frames for
-which no explicit name has been set (see `modify-frame-parameters').  */);
+which no explicit name has been set (see `modify-frame-parameters').
+
+A similar template for iconified frames may be defined by `icon-title-format'.  */);
 
   DEFVAR_LISP ("icon-title-format", Vicon_title_format,
     doc: /* Template for displaying the title bar of an iconified frame.
 \(Assuming the window manager supports this feature.)
 If the value is a string, it should have the same structure
 as `mode-line-format' (which see), and is used only on frames

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de> writes:
>
>> On 04.05.23 02:12, Po Lu wrote:
>>>>     The title of iconified or minimized frames is determined by
>>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> X does not use the term ``minimized''.  We prefer just
>>> ``iconified''.
>>
>> I’m afraid “we” includes me — because I’m old. So old in fact that I
>> (barely) remember mwm being able to turn top-level windows into icons
>> and back. Those were the days… ;-)
>>
>> But I don’t actually remember the last window manager I used that used
>> this
>> feature. Might actually have been mwm. The last decade or so GNOME 2
>> and
>> then MATE minimized my windows into the Window List panel applet. So I
>> can
>> see the window’s title changing when it is minimized or restored,
>> which is a
>> rather uncommon “feature” in this desktop environment.
>>
>> PS: there’s also “shaded” these days… :-p
>
> These are all reported under the Iconic state, and as such that is the
> terminology we use in Emacs.
>
> So let's please not use the term "minimize".  Thanks.

What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?

IIRC a few years ago there was on this list some acknowledgment of the
problems posed by using obsolete terminology in Emacs and some actions
were discussed to converge to modern wording up to some extent.

Rejecting "___ or minimized" on the docs only works nowadays if the goal
is obfuscating things.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
> Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:29 +0200
> 
> > So let's please not use the term "minimize".  Thanks.
> 
> What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?
> 
> IIRC a few years ago there was on this list some acknowledgment of the
> problems posed by using obsolete terminology in Emacs and some actions
> were discussed to converge to modern wording up to some extent.
> 
> Rejecting "___ or minimized" on the docs only works nowadays if the goal
> is obfuscating things.

We don't reject it.  Please, both of you, make a point of actually
looking at our manuals before starting argument about problems that
don't exist.  This is a tempest in a teapot.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > So let's please not use the term "minimize".  Thanks.
>> 
>> What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?
>> 
>> IIRC a few years ago there was on this list some acknowledgment of the
>> problems posed by using obsolete terminology in Emacs and some actions
>> were discussed to converge to modern wording up to some extent.
>> 
>> Rejecting "___ or minimized" on the docs only works nowadays if the goal
>> is obfuscating things.
>
> We don't reject it.  Please, both of you, make a point of actually
> looking at our manuals before starting argument about problems that
> don't exist.  This is a tempest in a teapot.

I know *we* don't reject it, but the patch submitter was told otherwise
in an official tone.

I'm glad that the issue has been clarified. Also, I hope that in the
future we double-check the project's policies before stating to
contributors (actual and potential) what's the acceptable way of doing
things here.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
> Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 18:37:31 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> Rejecting "___ or minimized" on the docs only works nowadays if the goal
> >> is obfuscating things.
> >
> > We don't reject it.  Please, both of you, make a point of actually
> > looking at our manuals before starting argument about problems that
> > don't exist.  This is a tempest in a teapot.
> 
> I know *we* don't reject it, but the patch submitter was told otherwise
> in an official tone.

He was asked to use one term of the two possible ones, with a reason
behind the request presented as part of it.

> I'm glad that the issue has been clarified. Also, I hope that in the
> future we double-check the project's policies before stating to
> contributors (actual and potential) what's the acceptable way of doing
> things here.

I cannot (and won't) prevent people here from expressing their
opinions, including on terminology.  The line between "official tone"
and an opinion of a developer is thin and fine, and is not always
clearly visible, especially when two people are communicating in a
language that isn't the first one for any of them.  All I can do is
ask people to take extra care when they express opinions that are not
necessarily codified, as I did in this case more than once.
Eventually, if a contributor was told something they are uncomfortable
with, and wants to know whether it's policy, he or she will have to
ask about that explicitly, and then they will have their answer.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:

> What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?

Because ``minimization'' is a form of iconification.

> IIRC a few years ago there was on this list some acknowledgment of the
> problems posed by using obsolete terminology in Emacs and some actions
> were discussed to converge to modern wording up to some extent.

``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
by proprietary window systems.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:
>
>> What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?
>
> Because ``minimization'' is a form of iconification.

Most users don't know this.

>> IIRC a few years ago there was on this list some acknowledgment of the
>> problems posed by using obsolete terminology in Emacs and some actions
>> were discussed to converge to modern wording up to some extent.
>
> ``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
> by proprietary window systems.

KDE and AwesomeWM (just to mention the window managers I have installed
on this machine) are not proprietary. AFAIK Gnome also uses "minimize"
on its user-oriented documentation, so does Xfce and LXQt.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 760 bytes --]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 03:02:28AM +0200, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

[...]

> > ``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
> > by proprietary window systems.
> 
> KDE and AwesomeWM (just to mention the window managers I have installed
> on this machine) are not proprietary. AFAIK Gnome also uses "minimize"
> on its user-oriented documentation, so does Xfce and LXQt.

Po Lu is still right. The question is whether to accept Microsoft's
intellectual hegemony here (as the GNU/Linux desktop ennvironments
have done, too lightly for my personal taste) or not.

Tough question. I clearly side with Po Lu's standpoint here, but can
understand that there are others.

Cheers
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:

> Most users don't know this.

Really?

> KDE and AwesomeWM (just to mention the window managers I have installed
> on this machine) are not proprietary. AFAIK Gnome also uses "minimize"
> on its user-oriented documentation, so does Xfce and LXQt.

If they make this mistake, shame on them.  There is no reason for us to
follow in their footsteps.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 08:15:24 +0800
> 
> Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:
> 
> > What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?
> 
> Because ``minimization'' is a form of iconification.
> 
> > IIRC a few years ago there was on this list some acknowledgment of the
> > problems posed by using obsolete terminology in Emacs and some actions
> > were discussed to converge to modern wording up to some extent.
> 
> ``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
> by proprietary window systems.

It is nowadays used by some GNU/Linux desktops (which basically
copycat everything that Windows introduces, as if there are no other
UI ideas under the sun).  So, like it or not, this terminology is in
the wild for quite some time, and we cannot ignore that.  Refraining
from mentioning these terms will not help cleansing the terminology,
but it will make it harder for users to read our documentation.

So we decided to use both terms, and explain that they are the same.
It is therefore futile to keep arguing about this, so let's please
not.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 06:44:45 +0200
> From: <tomas@tuxteam.de>
> 
> > > ``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
> > > by proprietary window systems.
> > 
> > KDE and AwesomeWM (just to mention the window managers I have installed
> > on this machine) are not proprietary. AFAIK Gnome also uses "minimize"
> > on its user-oriented documentation, so does Xfce and LXQt.
> 
> Po Lu is still right. The question is whether to accept Microsoft's
> intellectual hegemony here (as the GNU/Linux desktop ennvironments
> have done, too lightly for my personal taste) or not.
> 
> Tough question. I clearly side with Po Lu's standpoint here, but can
> understand that there are others.

There's no "standpoint" here.  Our documentation must be easily
interpreted by today's users, and so boycotting terminology we don't
like is silly and futile.  We will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Once again: the documentation already says that these two are
equivalent, so both terms can be used.  Which one to use in each case
depends on the context; for example, when talking about variables or
functions that include "icon" in their names, using "iconify" is
clearly better (but "minimize" could be mentioned in parentheses as
the alternative, where appropriate).

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 08:33:14AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 06:44:45 +0200
> > From: <tomas@tuxteam.de>
> > 
> > > > ``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
> > > > by proprietary window systems.
> > > 
> > > KDE and AwesomeWM (just to mention the window managers I have installed
> > > on this machine) are not proprietary. AFAIK Gnome also uses "minimize"
> > > on its user-oriented documentation, so does Xfce and LXQt.
> > 
> > Po Lu is still right. The question is whether to accept Microsoft's
> > intellectual hegemony here (as the GNU/Linux desktop ennvironments
> > have done, too lightly for my personal taste) or not.
> > 
> > Tough question. I clearly side with Po Lu's standpoint here, but can
> > understand that there are others.
> 
> There's no "standpoint" here.  Our documentation must be easily
> interpreted by today's users, and so boycotting terminology we don't
> like is silly and futile.  We will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

I think nobody's proposing "boycotting" anything. Helping people to
find things with whichever terms they come in, is, I guess, consensus.

Cheers
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 09:28:46 +0200
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > There's no "standpoint" here.  Our documentation must be easily
> > interpreted by today's users, and so boycotting terminology we don't
> > like is silly and futile.  We will be shooting ourselves in the foot.
> 
> I think nobody's proposing "boycotting" anything.

I rather think someone did.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Tobias Bading]

Oh god, what have I done? XD

But holding back isn’t one of my strong suites, so here goes nothin’…

The X Window System may have introduced and/or (re)used certain terms, like
“normal” and “iconic” for different states of top-level windows, but that
was ages ago. That the term “iconic” was chosen is very unfortunate IMHO.
It contains the word “icon” and thus suggests/implies that a currently
invisible window is represented by some icon somewhere. Window managers like
mwm may have chosen to actually represent invisible windows this way back
then. Today, a lot of free software desktop environments, window systems,
window managers etc are available. Some may present invisible windows as
icons, others as buttons in window lists, a thumbnail in a dock, or
whatever. Some may not show them at all, except for when you use some
keyboard shortcut to switch between windows. Not to mention states somewhere
between visible and unvisible, like a window that has been rolled up so that
only its title bar remains. Most of those representations for invisible
windows weren’t even invented yet when the X developers chose to use the
term “iconic”.

On 05.05.23 02:15, Po Lu wrote:
>> What's wrong with saying "iconified or minimized"?
>
> Because ``minimization'' is a form of iconification.
>
>> […]
>
> ``minimize'' is not modern terminology.  It is simply terminology used
> by proprietary window systems.

I wasn’t aware that “minimized” was considered to be a proprietary term,
or a term created by a vendor of proprietary software. To me it is simply
an appropriate term to describe a top-level window that is currently not
visible, no matter how the user’s desktop environment of choice represents
such a window. It doesn’t imply that icons are used. It simply means that
the window (or all windows of that application together) is represented in
some minimal or small form. So to me the term “minimized” makes more sense
than “iconic”.

On 05.05.23 07:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> ``minimize'' […]
>
> It is nowadays used by some GNU/Linux desktops (which basically
> copycat everything that Windows introduces, as if there are no other
> UI ideas under the sun).

That global menu bar feature in GTK / GNOME 3 — whatever it’s official name
in GTK may be — wasn’t copied from Microsoft, it was copied from Apple.
The same goes for that Spotlight search emulator I’d say.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with free software providing useful
features that remind me of features I have seen somewhere else before.
Microsoft and Apple may have their ©s, ®s, ™s and whatnot, but that’s a
different story. What I *do* have a problem with is free software like GTK
and GNOME copying Apple’s goddamn “use our software exactly as we provide it
— or don’t use it at all” attitude. Why did I stick with GNOME 2 as long as
humanly possible and then switched to MATE? Because GNOME 2 and Compiz were
customizable as f*ck. Every user had the freedom of choice to use whatever
look & feel and features they wanted. Last I checked GNOME 3 had no support
for panels at all and that alone make it unusable for me personally.

.
.
.

What were we talking about again?
Right, that frame-title-format doc string… XD
I didn’t intend to start a mega-thread about terminology. If Emacs doc
strings had see-also sections I would have simply asked to please put a
“See also: icon-title-format” into frame-title-format’s doc string.
I’m happy with the added (setq icon-title-format t) in my ~/.emacs, which
made Emacs 29 behave like Emacs 26.3. I just thought a little hint in the
doc string might help other people who upgrade their Emacs like me and
wonder about those changing window titles.

Tobias

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 12:40:37 +0200
> From: Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de>
> 
> Oh god, what have I done? XD
> [...]
> What were we talking about again?
> Right, that frame-title-format doc string… XD
> I didn’t intend to start a mega-thread about terminology. If Emacs doc
> strings had see-also sections I would have simply asked to please put a
> “See also: icon-title-format” into frame-title-format’s doc string.
> I’m happy with the added (setq icon-title-format t) in my ~/.emacs, which
> made Emacs 29 behave like Emacs 26.3. I just thought a little hint in the
> doc string might help other people who upgrade their Emacs like me and
> wonder about those changing window titles.

Something to consider when you post a message about some minor (in
this case, really minuscule) issue.  There's a lesson to be learned
here, I think.

Bottom line: from my POV, there's nothing wrong with our doc strings.
icon-title-format has a reference to frame-title-format, and there's a
reason for that.  There's no reason for the reverse reference, so we
don't have it.

Blindly adding a "see also" for every possible subject under the sun
is not something we do, and should not do.  References should be
instrumental, focused, and to the point, otherwise they are just a
distraction and a cause for user frustration.

The manual, OTOH, shows a broader picture, and thus describes both of
them, and provides some context which allows the reader to understand
the logic behind having both.  The right way of using the Emacs
documentation is to start with doc strings (perhaps via apropos
commands), then look in the manual if the issue is still not clear or
if there's a need for deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the
issue and its aspects.

Expecting the doc strings to answer all the questions and include all
the references to all the possible tangents is impractical.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de> writes:

> Oh god, what have I done? XD
>
> But holding back isn’t one of my strong suites, so here goes nothin’…
>
> The X Window System may have introduced and/or (re)used certain terms, like
> “normal” and “iconic” for different states of top-level windows, but that
> was ages ago. That the term “iconic” was chosen is very unfortunate IMHO.
> It contains the word “icon” and thus suggests/implies that a currently
> invisible window is represented by some icon somewhere. Window managers like
> mwm may have chosen to actually represent invisible windows this way back
> then.

And yet, on my GNOME 3 desktop, iconified windows _are_ still
represented by an icon placed within the dash area in the overview
panel.  ``Iconification'' is simply the more accurate term: there is
nothing minimal about the huge previews displayed in the overview area,
but the previews do correspond to icons.

Not that I like GNOME's new design.  I think it's horrible.

Anyway, I don't object to explaining what we call ``minimized'', as long
as it is confined to some short introductory text in the manual.  But we
should never use the term ``minimized'' ourselves.

> Today, a lot of free software desktop environments, window systems,
> window managers etc are available. Some may present invisible windows
> as icons, others as buttons in window lists, a thumbnail in a dock, or

A thumbnail, or a button containing an icon, is not/does not contain an
icon?

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 19:00:48 +0800
> 
> Anyway, I don't object to explaining what we call ``minimized'', as long
> as it is confined to some short introductory text in the manual.  But we
> should never use the term ``minimized'' ourselves.

That's not the current policy, and I see no reason to enforce such
restrictions.  So please stop pushing others to adopt your personal
preferences.

> > Today, a lot of free software desktop environments, window systems,
> > window managers etc are available. Some may present invisible windows
> > as icons, others as buttons in window lists, a thumbnail in a dock, or
> 
> A thumbnail, or a button containing an icon, is not/does not contain an
> icon?

They are not necessarily icons or buttons nowadays.  Some desktops
actually display a miniature snapshot of the frame.

Anyway, this argument leads nowhere, so I wish we'd stop wasting each
other's time.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Anyway, I don't object to explaining what we call ``minimized'', as long
>> as it is confined to some short introductory text in the manual.  But we
>> should never use the term ``minimized'' ourselves.
>
> That's not the current policy, and I see no reason to enforce such
> restrictions.  So please stop pushing others to adopt your personal
> preferences.

There are at least two reasons:

  1. the term ``minimize'' does not make sense, at least on the common
     free desktops.

  2. Emacs minimizes windows, while it iconifies frames.  Type M-x
     minimize-window RET, then see what happens.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: tbading@web.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 20:29:29 +0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> Anyway, I don't object to explaining what we call ``minimized'', as long
> >> as it is confined to some short introductory text in the manual.  But we
> >> should never use the term ``minimized'' ourselves.
> >
> > That's not the current policy, and I see no reason to enforce such
> > restrictions.  So please stop pushing others to adopt your personal
> > preferences.
> 
> There are at least two reasons:
> 
>   1. the term ``minimize'' does not make sense, at least on the common
>      free desktops.
> 
>   2. Emacs minimizes windows, while it iconifies frames.  Type M-x
>      minimize-window RET, then see what happens.

I hear you, but I still don't see that as good enough reasons to stop
using "minimize frames" as well.  I explained my reasons already, and
IMO they are more important than the ones you present.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> There are at least two reasons:
>> 
>>   1. the term ``minimize'' does not make sense, at least on the common
>>      free desktops.
>> 
>>   2. Emacs minimizes windows, while it iconifies frames.  Type M-x
>>      minimize-window RET, then see what happens.
>
> I hear you, but I still don't see that as good enough reasons to stop
> using "minimize frames" as well.  I explained my reasons already, and
> IMO they are more important than the ones you present.

It is easy to understand that ``iconify'' does mean the same thing, as
it's already explained many times in the Emacs manual.

Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: tbading@web.de,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 07:52:40 +0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> There are at least two reasons:
> >> 
> >>   1. the term ``minimize'' does not make sense, at least on the common
> >>      free desktops.
> >> 
> >>   2. Emacs minimizes windows, while it iconifies frames.  Type M-x
> >>      minimize-window RET, then see what happens.
> >
> > I hear you, but I still don't see that as good enough reasons to stop
> > using "minimize frames" as well.  I explained my reasons already, and
> > IMO they are more important than the ones you present.
> 
> It is easy to understand that ``iconify'' does mean the same thing, as
> it's already explained many times in the Emacs manual.

For you and me (and quite a few others), it is easy.  But some people
will be more comfortable with "minimize", and I see no reason to make
this harder for them.