On Thursday 24 August 2006 16:54, Benji York wrote:
> Stephan's ZSCP proposal suggests using the package name "z3c" for
> "community" packages. IOW, packages that aren't part of a larger
> collection like lovely.*, zc.*, etc.. There are currently several z3c
> packages in existence.
> The zope3.org packages currently use the package name "zorg". I
> personally (and at least a couple other people feel the same way) like
> zorg better than z3c. I'd like to propose that zorg become the name
> space package for otherwise homeless modules/packages.
> (In fairness, I'll note that Stephan likes z3c better, and that name is
> already in semi-wide-spread use).
Right, thus I am clearly -1. :-) (Wow, now I do not even have to argue myself
Note that we spent a lot of time coming up with this name and pretty much all
the contributors to the namespace were involved in the discussion. Also, z3c
does not try to be the holy grail of community work. It is just another
namespace and I think this should be accepted. Zope Corp decided to use "zc",
Lovely Systems "lovely" and a bunch of us not representing a company decided
to use "z3c". So what's wrong with that? Should I create a foundation called
Z3C to have the right get this namespace? Other people can feel free to work
on another namespace. (BTW, I would without a thought change the working in
the ZSCP document to be less asserting and globalizing.)
I wonder how Zope Corp. would feel if I would ask them to use zcorp, because
"zc" stands for Zope Community?
BTW, I am not aggravated about the mail; I am just very tired of those
pointless namespace discussions.
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list