On 10/6/07, Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
> and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
> this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?

Now you are being silly. :-) He was writing a text about how small the
difference was between Zope2 and Zope3 developer. How would he do that
without using those words, so you suggest?

> You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we
> know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components.

No, he explicitly says that Plone 3.0 has a heavy use of Zope 3
components. That is not an "implication".

> You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but
> not for Zope? why?

Nobody in the plone world is taking about Plone 3 developers and Plone
2 developers.

> I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing
> for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this
> terms so heavy.

What renaming is he lobbying for? This is not about renaming anything.

I think this discussion would be more constructive if you put more of
your time into trying to understand what other say instead of trying
to misinterpret them.

Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
+33 661 58 14 64
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to