How exactly should "CRH" be expanded?

[mr_e_man]

We all know that "face" is ambiguous in higher dimensions. Wendy proposed "CRH" instead of "CRF". The latter means "convex regular-faced", but what about the former?
Here are some options:

"convex regular-hedrous" viewtopic.php?p=17851#p17851
"convex regularly-hedrated" viewtopic.php?p=24388#p24388
"convex regular-hedroned"
"convex with regular hedra"

[wendy]

Richard Klitzing is using the 3d term 'face' to stand for a hedron

Gosset studied all the convex regular face (pg sense) beside the regulars, a scattering to eight dimensions.

My main division isto Wythoff and non-Wythoff.

[quickfur]

Another way to define it is the set of polytopes whose 3D elements are regular, uniform, or Johnson. Not a super-neat definition but it works and produces the same set. So we might call them the RUJ polytopes or 3RUJ polytopes.

[Klitzing]

Gosset studied all the convex regular face (pg sense) beside the regulars, a scattering to eight dimensions.

I doubt that he did. Else all the findings of the Blind couple would have been anticipated!
I rather assume that he just considered those which belong to a non-reducible reflectional symmetry group with (like for regulars) just a single end node of the diagram is to be ringed. (Sure this characterization more is a posteriori, i.e. already knowing about CD diagrams ...)

--- rk

[mr_e_man]

I mean, what words do the letters "CRH" stand for?

"Regular-faced" sounds more natural than all of the variant wordings I listed.
...possibly because "face" is a noun and a verb, but "hedron" is only a noun.

[wendy]

convex regular hedral isthen adjective form.