Inconsistent word capitalisation in document kind

Most document kinds are written with only first letter capitalised (or capital file extension). But some audio and image kinds are written with capital initial letter for each word. For example, “PDF document”, “JPEG Image”, “AIFF Audio Document”.

Those are standard names for the file types; they are not typos.

“Standard” in what sense? I checked that Files app shows different names.

I’m referring to why “document” in “PDF document” is written with lower case while in “AIFF Audio Document” is written capitalised.

DEVONthink 3 retrieves the kind from macOS, therefore it should be identical to the Finder.

I see. But in Finder, there is no such issue. For example, “image” in “JPEG image” is properly written in lower case.

is properly written in lower case

I’m not sure why this is proper.

The Finder uses: PDF Document and AIFF-C audio. This would indicate an inconsistency in the Finder as well.

So, your excuse for this inconsistency is that Apple has a different inconsistency. Never mind.

Knowing Apple this will not be fixed in the first place.

1 Like

I don’t understand why this would rely on Apple to fix. Apparently DTTG displays different capitalisation compared to Finder. This means it’s up to DEVONthink to determine the capitalisation and whether or not to fix it.

But knowing DT, this will probably never be fixed as rarely anything gets fixed in DTTG.

If you actually read the response from DT you know that this is an Apple bug…

In Get Info windows, the Finder uses “PDF document” in the Kind field.

In the Kind column of a Finder window in List view, the Finder shows “PDF Document.”

The document’s Kind as shown in a column-view file preview in Column view in the Finder shows “PDF document.”

Why? Who knows?

As a professional copy editor who has worked alongside developers for many years, my approach to this kind of inconsistency is this: Preserve your sanity by choosing your battles.

1 Like

Read through the posts again yourself and convince yourself you are wrong. If not, please don’t reply again. Thanks!

Thanks, @Tony2X. It’s actually true that developers generally strive to be consistent, but it’s also cosmetic rather than functional and therefore usually details dealt with in later clean up stages. These certainly can be missed when dealing with deeper issues.

1 Like