This may not be quite the right forum for this but I don't know of another more appropriate one.
In writing about the Fasta format (as opposed to the program), should Fasta be written as FASTA, Fasta, or fasta? From what I understand, the Fasta format originated as part of the (appropriately capitalized) FASTA program, but it seems to me that it has taken on a life of its own. The NCBI fasta format description and the EMBL sequence format page seem to be consistent in using FASTA. A search for the term "fasta" on the PLoS Biology website yielded a mix of FASTA and Fasta capitalizations (and one FastA), though most were FASTA.
I've tried to summarize the arguments for each format below.
FASTA: since it originated with the program, it should be capitalized like the program.
Fasta: as a proper name, it should be capitalized in the same way as other proper names.
fasta: as an informal reference to an unpublished format which has changed over time (see the Wikipedia article discussion), it's not really a proper name at all.
I prefer Fasta but I'm open to arguments. Any suggestions?
