From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailhost.rdmcorp.com (world.rdmcorp.com [204.225.180.10]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FF22BDA0 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 05:13:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:56:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" To: Mark Chambers In-Reply-To: <005601c4b155$8ae3fbf0$0301a8c0@chuck2> Message-ID: References: <005601c4b155$8ae3fbf0$0301a8c0@chuck2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Embedded PPC Linux list Subject: Re: "I2C" versus "IIC" List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Mark Chambers wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert P. J. Day" > To: "Embedded PPC Linux list" > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:26 PM > Subject: "I2C" versus "IIC" > > My vote, since nobody asked, would be "I2C". I've always heard people > say "I squared C", and since only CBS can get superscripts out of ASCII > I2C is about as close as you can get. I2C is more unique and hence > a more readily recognizable acronym. > > But I'm sure we could get about 50/50 voting on this. oh, probably. :-) i realize it sounds nitpicky and pedantic, but it would have been nice if the source was consistent on this. but based on my grep of the tree, i don't see that that's possible -- too many examples of each. it's kind of a mess. personally, i'd prefer a consistent usage of "i2c" or "I2C" as well, but i just don't see it happening. rday