Sounds good to me.
> Here is my definition of "product"
Sounds good too.
Arguing with a few of your classifications under your own definition:
PSM isn't really a product on its own. Neither, really, is NSPR - it
doesn't _do_ anything, and isn't really "usable software".
Now, we just need to say where to put the two groups. My view:
technologies in /dev/tech
products in /projects .
The reason for this is that:
a) /projects is already a current directory name - good for people's
memories
b) It's vague enough to incorporate all the things you call products,
plus the random stuff like accessibility and i18n.
Yes, this has the same directory serving two purposes, but I think if we
try and subdivide further there'll just be more arguments about what
belongs where. The more divisions, the more that'll happen.
> - User Interface docs (specs, ...)
I think if we are having /dev/web and /dev/themes, we could make a good
case for ./dev/ui.
> - Performance/Footprint
Footprint can be rolled into performance; /dev/performance?
/projects/performance would probably do as well.
> - OJI and other Java-related stuff. Is that considered a product or a
> technology? In fact I don't know them well enough to say.
Technology.
> - Search infrastructure. Product or tech? I'd say tech.
Do they have any web pages at all?
> - XPToolkit/XPFE: It's a set of technologies, but is it considered a
> product?
No - you can't use it on its own.
Whatever we do, we're not going to agree on everything. I think it's
significant that, without seeing my proposal suggesting the /projects
and dev/tech split, some guy in the newsgroups came up with it
independently. It's obviously resonating in other heads too.
Gerv
