Module naming conventions?

[Dinu C. Gherman]

After seeing Fred's announcement of the new documentation 
package, I sniffed into the module index and was surprised 
to see one being named "framework", obviously targeted only 
for Macs.

Now I'm not exactly fanatical about perfection, but seeing 
that module name I wonder if there weren't some sort of guide-
lines for naming modules with criteria to satisfy before gran-
ting them the attribute "standard"? 

In this case naming a module "framework" is about as much a
self-explanation as the famous Italian newspaper which was 
named "Il Giornale", meaning "The Newspaper". In this case
the complaint came actually from an Italian I talked to in 
Florence years ago and who made a comparison with parents
naming their child "Bambino" ("Child").

Can we do something to avoid such module and package names?
Even change existing ones? A grand "module-renaming fest"? 
;-) Or is this not perceived as an issue?

Admittedly, this isn't one of the most urgent ones, maybe,
but how much would we like to use standard (!) module names
like "module" or "language"? We might not need to call every-
thing "Alice", "Bob", "Medusa" and so on (which are also not 
more useful by definition, but certainly more distinct), but 
we should try to avoid using categories as names.

Regards,

Dinu

-- 
Dinu C. Gherman
................................................................
"The thing about Linux or open software in general is that 
it actually tries to move software from being witchcraft to 
being a science," [...] "A lot of the programs you see today 
are actually put together by shamans, and you just take it and 
if the computer crashes you walk around it three times... and 
maybe it's OK." (Linus Thorvalds, LinuxWorld 2000, NYC)