> On 13 Jun 2017, at 14:48, Eduard Moraru <enygma2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Daniel, > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM, daniel glazman <daniel.glaz...@xwiki.com> > wrote: > >>>> * "Base XWiki Flavor” >>>> * “Classic XWiki Flavor” >>>> * “Raw XWiki Flavor” >>>> * “Starter XWiki Flavor” >>>> * "Default XWiki Flavor” >>>> * "Generic XWiki Flavor” >>>> * “Standard XWiki Flavor” >>>> * "XWiki Flavor” >>>> * "Vanilla XWiki" >> >> Sorry to send this message without the threading references; I just >> subscribed to the devs@xwiki.org mailing-list and I would like to >> contribute my €0.02 to the discussion The items below are numbered for >> commenting convenience but are not ordered in any way. >> >> 1. The name XWiki already has its first letter at the end of the alphabet. >> Marketing-wise in the Software ecosystem, lists of apps are most often >> alphabetically sorted, granting a bonus to apps with a name in A, B or C, >> and a minus to the end of the alphabet. So all names there have to >> counterbalance that handicap and I think "self-descriptiveness" does >> matter. >> > >> 2. if you except "XWiki Flavor", the word "XWiki" comes in second position >> in all proposals, and that is not the best thing ever. >> > > So you`re suggesting "XWiki Standard" instead of "Standard XWiki Flavor", > right? Sounds good to me, specially since I`m not a fan of dragging along > the word "Flavor" when the result will be displayed in a list of "flavors" > (i.e. it's redundant).
This is what I said in my previous email too. And BTW we may not need to drag “XWiki” either, especially since I’ve suggested to display the “developed by” in the DW UI so that users know who developed it and who’s supporting it. Now, the full name outside of the DW context would still be "<affiliation> <qualifier> Flavor”, as in "XWiki Standard Flavor”, “XWiki SAS Procedure Flavor”, “XWiki Demo Flavor”, etc. Thanks -Vincent > >> 3. the name must be chosen wrt the targeted audience and the product's >> position on the market. I think Olivier has a point when he writes « what >> is the audience and the objectives ? » >> >> 4. more specifically about the proposals above: >> >> 4.1. a "flavor" holds the notion of specialization. >> >> 4.2. "Classic" can mean "legacy" in the Software world. Use carefully... >> >> 4.3. "Vanilla" is a geeky choice. Nobody else but geeks will get >> it,sorry. >> >> >> IMHO, "XWiki Foundation", "XWiki Core" or "XWiki Starter Kit" represent >> quite well what this is all about. >> > > I think you`re mixing it with the Minimal (/Base/Core) flavor. We`re > currently addressing the flavor that is to mirror the current XE > distribution, with all the bells and whistles (hence the > "Standard"/"Default" suggestions). It builds upon the Minimal distribution > (like other flavors should do). > > Thanks, > Eduard > >> >> </Daniel>
