Is it io.js, IO.js, or something else?

[mathiasbynens]

The main contributors to this repository seem to use “io.js” (in issues, commits, meeting notes), but @isaacs’ blog post has “IO.js”. Which is it?

Let’s nip this in the bud and add this FAQ to the README.

cfr. https://www.npmjs.org/doc/misc/npm-faq.html#is-it-npm-or-npm-or-npm-

[CodeFoodPixels]

I've been using it as lowercase

[sonewman]

LOL, damn i was hoping it would be iO.Js

[jonathanong]

iOo.oOo.js

[ghostbar]

This should clarify it nodejs/build-containers#5 (comment)

[Fishrock123]

io.js

node-forward/discussions#19 (comment)

[cjihrig]

Based on @rvagg's comment, the name of the repo, and the name on the 0.12 branch README, it seems like we are going with io.js. We can revisit this later if there is disagreement.

[cjihrig]

@mathiasbynens I think it would be fine to have this in the documentation, unless the TC disagrees.

[rvagg]

going to flag this as a discussion for TC this week

[danielstjules]

iOo.oOo.js

That's gotta be a close second.

[chinghanho]

IO.js.

http://blog.izs.me/post/104685388058/io-js

[CodeFoodPixels]

That was just how izs used it, doesn't make it the official approach.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 9:07 am Ching-Han Ho [email protected] wrote:

IO.js.

http://blog.izs.me/post/104685388058/io-js

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#118 (comment).

[snostorm]

The reverse name (jsio / js.io) had been swimming in my brain for a few days (and then I finally searched the name and realized it was already a thing.) So my €0.02: IO.js.

I do wonder if, over time, there is a risk of the "js" dropping when the project is discussed in more colloquial use and people just calling it IO/io.

[bnoordhuis]

Per today's TC meeting, it's "io.js". All hail io.js!

[danielstjules]

🤘

[rvagg]

meeting minutes are in #144

[mathiasbynens]

Let’s document this in the README (or in a FAQ somewhere).

@isaacs Could you run s/IO.js/io.js/g on your blog post to reduce confusion?