On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:50 AM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:36:23AM +0100, João Távora wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:15 AM Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > >    following recent discussions I've started toying with what I've
> pushed
> > > on
> > >    scratch/modern-mode.
> > >
> > > What some find modern, some will find old.  What some find old, some
> > > will find modern.  What was once modern will become old again, and
> > > what was old again will become modern.
> > >
> > > A different name would be more appropriate
> >
> >
> > Yup, this is really obvious to me, too (*)  I seem to remember that
> > other packages don't have a lot of problems naming some
> > features "fancy".  Does "fancy" have a negative connotation?
>
> De Luxe?
>
> But more seriously: what I have learnt from all this discussion
> is that we'll need more than one of those.
>
> Those modes are often opinionated (they have to). So it's better
> if the mode's opinions align with those of the user.\
>

Good point: these are opinionated things by nature, so they
should be named as themes are, somewhat freely according
to the vision of their authors. This also reveals that the
thing shouldn't be called a "mode" at all. It should be done
with custom-themes and if that proves a limitation, then
custom-themes have to be improved, maybe even reinvented.

João