On 7/6/06 at 3:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Davis) wrote: > > > > On 7/6/06 2:28 PM, "Joel Gwynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > True. One should also consider google-ability. Web::Application > > could be as difficult to google as .NET. > > I further this sentiment. Sticking religiously to "name is function" > satisfies one goal, but may fall short for others. Is there a big > downside to "going out on a limb" with the name (perhaps within the > Web:: namespace, perhaps not)?
Lots of other names, e.g.: Maypole Catalyst Mason Ruby on Rails Django don't imply "I'm a web application framework", but are instead branded or marketed as such. Perhaps this approach would be better? Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]