On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:13:38PM +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >
> > I think there was agreement on Monday about this, do we need a vote, or
> > am I mistaken about the agreement?
> I think we had consensus, however not all committers attended the hackathon,
> so it might be that someone is -1 on it and has a good reason.
>
> >
> > Naming it "Cocoon Forms" is a nice parallel to "Cocoon Flow", and shows
> > that we're betting the farm on it, which I like.
> +1
Im not against naming it "Cocoon Forms" but we need to be
sure we want to lock Cocoon to a single Forms implementation.
Just to play "devils advocate", an alternative name could be
"Woody Forms" or "WForms"
>
> >
> > We can probably keep Woody as the block name though, in homage to the
> > great sandwiches delivered to the great original authors of Cocoon
> > Forms ;-)
> I had a "Woody" yesterday; well...it's not that bad.
Carsten, tooo much information mate, ;)
cheers,
Michael
>
> But I think that it makes sense to rename the block as well. If someone
> is looking for form handling he will soon notice that the "form" block
> is about forms. But that's not visible if we keep the name "woody".
>
> Carsten
>
>
>
