On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:15:56PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote: > Tim Larson wrote: > >On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:05:38PM +0100, Marc Portier wrote: > >>Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>>Hi, > >>>>>In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with renaming > >>>>>Woody to CocoonForms. First I want to move the _core_ which means > >>>>>that I want to make one simple example run. > >>>>> > >>>>>namespaces: > >>>>>http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0 > >>>>>--> > >>>>>http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0 > >>>>> > >>>>Are there other 'forms' types? Maybe you could use "cforms" since that > >>>>is the most often used abbreviation and to set it apart from other > >>>>form types. > >>>> > >>>+1 (although I'm one of those that will miss "woody") > >>> > >>another +1 to 'cforms' over 'forms' > >>(and joining in on the 'will miss the original') > > > >+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms' > > > I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is obvious > because it's within the Cocoon CVS. > WDOT?
I could be wrong (that happens often enough), but what if we eventually replace Woody/Cocoon Forms with something better? If it is very different then IMHO just a namespace version change 1.0->2.0, etc. may not make a lot of sense. A new name may be in order at that point. If we start the pattern with CForms then we have a non-fantasy name, while still leaving room for future names for new forms frameworks (Super Forms -> SForms, etc.) I'll be quiet now :) --Tim Larson
