2011/9/20 Svante Schubert <[email protected]>: > Am 20.09.2011 01:49, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: >> I knew I should have objected to shortening of the name to odf more >> strenuously. > I missed that somehow. Just suggested in the previous mail to name the > project "Apache ODF SDK"
I like a understandable name. "Apache ODF SDK" sounds good. >> >> Hey, the nice thing about reference implementations is that there can be so >> many of them [;<). > I know this saying with "standards" instead of "reference implementations". > > Currently I am working on a OASIS change-tracking proposal. For > instance, I am defining what an "insert column <position>" is, by > defining the ODF XML change that has been triggered. > > Instead of writing the definition directly as prose into the ODF > specification, I thought it would be wise to create some intermediate > XML dialect to generate the English prose and some XSL transformation > from it. > The future stretch goal would be to generate as well the low level XML > ODFDOM handling for the high-level Simple call. This out-of-the-box > behavior could justify the naming of a reference implementation. > But future will tell... > > Regards, > Svante > > > >> >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Svante Schubert [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 16:05 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Project naming >> >> We started it already by naming the URL of our repository, but I would >> like to know if you share the impression that the dropping of the naming >> part "Toolkit" makes sense. >> >> I suggest to call our project: The Apache ODF project. >> Short, simple, elegant.. >> >> Another reason to do so: I would like that this project becomes the >> reference implementation of ODF. >> >> Regards, >> Svante >> > >
