Rename to elm-form (?)

[hecrj]

Many well-known packages use the elm- prefix (style-elements is elm-ui now, etc.).

Should we rename this package to elm-form? I think it could help new users to find it.

[russelldavies]

I find the elm- prefix kind of annoying as it's redundant, and wouldn't exist if we weren't tied to GitHub, but it seems to be what is recommended:

Say you want to work with X. Which package for X is the best? The options should be:

alice/elm-X
bob/elm-X
chuck/elm-X

Rather than choosing the one with the best branding (like in JS often) you choose the author you trust most. Best track record. Best working relationship. Etc.

There's already etaque/elm-form but with with the policy of same-name and choosing preferred author then there isn't a conflict.

I do like the name composable-form, the name is still literal enough and it also distinguishes it. If you type form into the package search this package does show up, although not at the top. Searching for elm-form has less results which is better, I suppose.

I'm on the fence.

[hecrj]

You summed up my thoughts pretty well @russelldavies.

I think packages with the elm- prefix will end up being associated with high quality in the long run. I don't think going against Evan's recommendation will bring any benefits, on the contrary. People won't search for composable forms when they want to work with forms in Elm. They will search for elm-form first.

[russelldavies]

Yeah, and I was thinking the composability is just one aspect which the current package name implicitly endorses over others, e.g. type safety. So, I'm down with the rename.

[russelldavies]

Discussion about elm-graphql rename.