On 2/8/06, Andreas Hartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Are we trying to confuse and lose the entire customer base? > > It's so reassuring to finally have someone around > who cares for the project ... :) > > > > Go read my other posts. > > I did, and I still have my own opinion. I see your points, > to some I agree, to others not. Anyway, I consider this > discussion too important to step aside. > > In the end, it's OK with me if we call XML and non-XML "things" > documents, or resources, or content items, or whatever. > I stated my current priority list. It seems to me that most of > us think this way. I didn't think that the discussion would > take this long when I started the thread. > > Maybe we should use a glossary proposal wiki page for a > (kind-of) vote. Everyone can write down definitions, and > the others can add +1 / -1. Don't add comments to existing > ones, just add your own. The positive ones survive, the > negative ones don't. No idea if this is useful. > > Any suggestions how to come to a decision are appreciated. > > Just my CHF 0.02. > > -- Andreas >
Rather than voting on the names of individual parts separately, which may conflict, I would suggest as a next step that each interested person summarize his view of how the site, page, module, document, asset, ande site tree all relate to each other, in just one or two paragraphs, similar to the way Andreas and SolProvider did at the beginning of this thread when they wrote "For me, the following text sounds quite good". There are probably only two or three such versions. Then you committers can vote on which paragraph sounds best. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
