On 29 Jun 2001 18:26:30 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> At 06:40 AM 6/29/01 -0500, Weiqi Gao wrote:
> >On 29 Jun 2001 06:37:00 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> >> 
> >> FOP2 is the term for a completely new layout engine, and so maybe
> >> we don't really want to call the thing "FOP2". Suggestions? I'll
> >> call it FOP1+ for now.
> >
> >Please spare us of the confusion and stick with simple numbers like 1 or
> >2.
> OK, that's fair...I just needed a label at that moment, so I picked a bad
> one.
> What we should probably really do is avoid attaching _any_ FOP version to 
> the advanced layout/formatting redesign, because it is a _module_ redesign, 
> not an overall FOP redesign. And in any case we do not even have a 1.0 
> (production-ready, feature-complete) version available, so it is premature 
> to allot versions that far out.
> I'm open to suggestions from anyone as to a convenient label for the 
> redesign that Karen & I have described (and that others have also contributed 
> to, I might add).

Why not stick with the Apache tradition of coining names that start with
an X and is hard to pronounce in English?  Is 'Xiesel' hard enough?

It starts with X.
It rhymes with Diesel, so you can talk about the 'Xiesel engine' in an
upcoming FOP release.
It has the letters 'X', 'S', 'L' in it, and 'XSL' is the official name
of the spec FOP is supposed to implement.

Weiqi Gao

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to