On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 22:59, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > The second link is performing a search on a tiny drop in the ocean of
> > source code in this world.
> > I fail to see how that proves your claim of "widely used everywhere".
>
> I can also tell you about private projects from different companies &
> entities using it, as well as others that do not. So?

So, nothing, I'm merely telling you that you have failed to prove your
bold claim.
Your subsequent bold claim that it's 'reality' instead of a bold claim
also remains unsubstantiated.

> > If that's really the case, I wonder why you haven't dropped that
> > identifier-less part of your proposal.
> > Based on field experience, those caveats are not widely understood,
> > and standardizing that footgun
> > will lead to rather nasty surprises when innocent users think a plain
> > #once works as it advertises on
> > the tin. "Surely a standards committee knows better than to
> > standardize something as quirky as that", they'll
> > say.
>
> Because many projects are already using it, thus it seems fair to give
> them the form they are already using.

Those projects already have the form they are already using. There's
no need for a standards
committee to take an action to give them what they already have,
especially when what's being proposed
gives them something else, including a different spelling.