[Proposal] New Assembly/Package Title format

[Nirmal4G]

New Package Title

The package title doesn't follow a particular format and is not machine readable. Thus, I propose the following format.

Product - Area - Specifics (Source/Target)

Example:

Assembly/Package Name	Assembly/Package Title
Microsoft.Toolkit	Windows Community Toolkit - Common (.NET Standard)
Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp	Windows Community Toolkit - Common (UWP)
Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp.Input	Windows Community Toolkit - Input - Gaze Interaction (w. EyeTracker)
Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp.UI	Windows Community Toolkit - UI
Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp.UI.Controls.Core	Windows Community Toolkit - Common Controls
Microsoft.Toolkit.Uwp.UI.Controls.Markdown	Windows Community Toolkit - Markdown Control

Note

The names and the format are not final. Please do suggest your ideas for the new titles.

[ghost]

Hello Nirmal4G, thank you for opening an issue with us!

I have automatically added a "needs triage" label to help get things started. Our team will analyze and investigate the issue, and escalate it to the relevant team if possible. Other community members may also look into the issue and provide feedback 🙌

[Kyaa-dost]

Thanks @Nirmal4G for the proposal. Opened this up for discussion to get insight from the rest of the community as well.

[michael-hawker]

Thanks @Nirmal4G for this proposal, makes sense. I was just confused at first, as I thought you were suggesting changing package ids, but it's just making our existing titles a bit more consistent, which sounds great!

I'm just getting back into things, so let's noodle on the names a bit this week in case we have any suggestions. Thanks again!

[Nirmal4G]

@michael-hawker Review in PR

Thanks @azchohfi, yeah we couldn't use the term 'Basic' here. Let's just label it with the technology for now.

What's the reason? If it's too vague or generic, we can use Common/Core, etc.. But that's just introducing different words for the same meaning into what is seemingly a simple package title.

If we are worried about discoverability (Web/NuGet search), package tags will take care of it. Package titles should be simple yet descriptive but brief.

[michael-hawker]

@Nirmal4G "Basic" isn't any more descriptive and also is more diminutive. It's also introducing another term we're not using to describe any of the packages anywhere else. We can think about if there's a better term for the future, but for now let's just keep it simple and work on merging the PR as there's already been a lot of discussion on things that have very minimal impact overall. Like the Title doesn't really show up anywhere in VS or Nuget.org.

[Nirmal4G]

Some of the new titles you've proposed doesn't follow the format I mentioned above. If Basics doesn't cut it, How about using Common/Core?

…things that have very minimal impact overall. Like the Title doesn't really show up anywhere in VS or NuGet!

Then, does it matter when there's a (new) term to describe those packages?

If we can't decide right now, I could separate the title changes into a new PR.

[michael-hawker]

That's what I updated them too. We can fiddle on this later if we need to, but think the updated formatting with the hyphen is fine. I've committed my suggestions, so all that's left on that PR is the open comment about reverting the targetframework for Uno. If you can do that bit, we can get that PR merged and move on to your other PRs.