> > No, the brand is not strong. > > Look around among people that have *not* used Cocoon and ask > them what it is. Most of them will tell you "it's a > publishing engine", or even "it's a tool to perform XSL > transformations". > > What we have now and what we're building is much more than > that, and IMO we won't be able to deliver this message with a > name that has been associated for 6 years to "just" a > publication engine, even if that "just" is already a lot. > > Struts has Shale which is a complete rewrite that learns from > the past and looks into the future. I really think we should > to the same. We're talking a new start, aiming at building a > simple, clean and consistent platform. That deserves more > than in a major revision number of a name that denotes > something else in most people's mind. >
I strongly disagree with this. And while I agree to most of the points being discussed, I can't help but feel that is is a step too far. And I also think the current discussion is missing something significant (when compared to the first Cocoon steps). While only being able to quickly read through all the discussions - if the best way is really for a clean start: Where is the vision? Matthew
