World: r3wp

Most people I know would say "The contents have changed" rather than 
"The content has changed" even though the second may be "more correct".

By the way, I probably should only be given 0.1 of a vote as I have 
hardly done any GUI programming with REBOL and certainly none with 
REBOL3.

Does not seem relevant in this case.

should the name not be the same as the CONTENT(S) block of the face? 
if it's named CONTENT(S).

Yes, unification is necessary, correct, we just need to find which 
alternative is preferred.

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary for Content when referring 
to a container of some kind:


(usually in plural) what is contained in something, especially in 
a vessel, book or house.

As a non-native speaker CONTENTS sounds quite strange... and I wouldn't 
remember to add the S after a couple of weeks not using it.

Is CONTENT(S) the best word here? You said "to signal something inside 
the face changed, and the face needs to update". How about:
- DIRTY
- MEMBERS
- STATE

...after a couple of weeks not using it
 - in fact, there was UPDATE-FACE/CONTENTS from the start

:-) So, I might haven't found it at all yet.

I am used to contents. But maybe I agree with Robert, that it does 
not clearly describe, what does it mean, so update-face/changed, 
update-face/dirty, would be more appropriate. Anyway - I voted for 
CONTENTS.

UPDATE-FACE is quite low-level, so you may not be forced to use the 
function at all.

Thanks, Pekr

My vote goes to: CONTENTS

As a non native speaker, I would prefere just CONTENT

'Content sounds singular; 'contents  sounds plural. Are there more 
cases than resizing and members changing to consider? It's a very 
general name, and 'content or 'contents doesn't add a lot of meaning 
to what it does exactly.

What does UPDATE-FACE do without the refinement?

I wrote it above, did you find the post?

Ah, saw it now, thanks.

As opposed to that, when just UPDATE-FACE is called, it means only 
that the face dimensions have been changed.

Because of the difference between UPDATE-FACE (meaning: face dimensions 
changed) and UPDATE-FACE/CONTENTS (meaning: face contents changed), 
neither of /DIRTY, /STATE makes sense to me. /MEMBERS instead of 
/CONTENTS looks more appropriate than the other alternatives, but 
still not preferable to /CONTENTS (at least to me).

If you're not planning to have both refinements meaning different 
things, I'll go for CONTENT. But I'm also non native english speaking.

Both words are in my english->danish dictionary. The danish word 
is "indhold", and it can be both singular and plural.

If a book only has one chapter, will it be called "table of content"? 
:-) Sorry, I'm probably creating more confusion.

:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content
Funny it's called a "content provider", not "contents provider".

My understanding is that content refers to what is inside, contents 
refers to a list of the content

After looking in dictionary on my computer, I'll say contents (plural) 
is more correct english.

The plural form:

the things that are held or included in something : he unscrewed 
the top of the flask and drank the contents | he picked up the correspondence 
and scanned the contents.
The singular:

the amount of a particular constituent occurring in a substance : 
milk with a low-fat content.

So I would be content with content

:-)

Ok, from now on, all new words in REBOL will be in esperanto. English 
is too difficult!

I think both forms would be correct, with contents a little more 
specific, and content a little more abstract, and shorter

when you have to move on short notice and you sell everything in 
your house, it's called a "contents sale"

Further explaining my explanation above, one would use contents when 
the items contained therein are easily numerated .. and content when 
it is not.  So, content provider because the items can not be easily 
enumerated, and vary from time to time.  So, on this basis one would 
use /contents because one can always enumerate the members of the 
object.

but if the object only had a single item, we would have to switch 
to use /content

So in contents sale, it would mean all the content

in a contents sale, one can list each item ...

a suggestion for the next release of r3-gui : the doc style (the 
doc parser) interprets the first line of text as a title, which is 
not always appropriated. For instance, in a simple 

alert "this is an alert", the text is displayed as title. I think 
that this feature should be removed.

jocko, the DOC style is using the MDP markup now so my guess is we 
would rather use different style for alert layouts. We'll look into 
it.

on CONTENT/CONTENTS:  As a native speaker, the singular word can 
be thought of as referring to a single collection.

so either makes sense, IMO

/CONTENT:/CONTENTS currently 5:4 (counting Cyphre for /CONTENT and 
me for /CONTENTS)

...and counting Robert for /CONTENT (the other alternatives are not 
more explanatory)

...and Graham seems to prefer /CONTENT if I understood it well

It's a draw, so make both available. Mayby not in this situation, 
even if more than one option can be good in many cases.

No, I've changed to /contents :)

I don't think I really voted, but I would go with 'contents as well. 
'Content seems to close to the meaning of set-face in my current 
mindset.

aha, after correcting and adding Gregg:

/CONTENT:/CONTENS = 4:6

(sorry for the typo)

It's a draw, so make both available
 - although possible in this case, it prevents unification

is it possible to find a different word?