William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 3/17/2010 3:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
I didn't think that the patch would incur the wrath of Roy.
I did - which is why my initial response was, uhm, direct. I'm sorry
if it also came off as opinionated or confrontational, I was just trying
to avert the previously-fought battle from reappearing.
I think it's worth noting that our English language expert can easily
derive "HTTPD" or "HTTPd" forms, so I don't know that Roy's blanket
criticism of the users/legal/whatever communities is really warranted.
It just points out that you need to think of any proposed name in terms
of its plural, possessive and other non-normative forms, and railing
against flaws of the English language is about a 1000 year old sport :)
Nothing Roy pointed out affects the "next version of httpd" (other than
speaking for potential bastardizations of "The HTTP Protocol", of which
he is still an active editor).
It's not too early to start talking (in trunk/STATUS?) of names for the
next httpd, e.g. 3.0. If we want to call it "Dee" or whatever, let the
naming begin :)
I know I am coming in to this discussion very late on, but I find the
name HTTPD (whatever capitalization) ugly and not very user friendly.
It is cumbersome to say the individual letters in English (by contrast
"IIS" rolls off the tongue much more easily). It seems that in print
everyone refers to the web server as just Apache, or maybe Apache [web]
server. I doubt that most people outside the project, without a Unix
background, would necessarily understand what HTTPD meant (and debian
and Ubuntu name their package "apache2" anyway).
In my opinion a better, clearer name would just be Apache Web Server.
Andrew
--
Andrew Ford
South Wing Compton House, Compton Green,
Redmarley, Gloucestershire, GL19 3JB, UK
Tel: +44 1531 829900
Mobile: +44 7785 258278
Email: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
