On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:15:56PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote:That's a point, of course. OTOH we decided that this community will support only one forms framework in the future. We will deprecate everything else very soon.
Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:05:38PM +0100, Marc Portier wrote:I'm +1 for "forms" only - as Vadim pointed out, it's "Cocoon" is obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:another +1 to 'cforms' over 'forms'
Hi,+1 (although I'm one of those that will miss "woody")
In the next few days I want (no promise ;-) to start with renaming Woody to CocoonForms. First I want to move the _core_ which means that I want to make one simple example run.Are there other 'forms' types? Maybe you could use "cforms" since that is the most often used abbreviation and to set it apart from other form types.
namespaces: http://apache.org/cocoon/woody/definition/1.0 --> http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/definition/1.0
(and joining in on the 'will miss the original')
WDOT?
I could be wrong (that happens often enough), but what if we eventually replace Woody/Cocoon Forms with something better? If it is very different then IMHO just a namespace version change 1.0->2.0, etc. may not make a lot of sense. A new name may be in order at that point. If we start the pattern with CForms then we have a non-fantasy name, while still leaving room for future names for new forms frameworks (Super Forms -> SForms, etc.)
I'll be quiet now :)
Suppose that somebody starts to implement another forms framework and we vote that this will be the official forms framwork in the future. This would mean that we deprecate the former forms framework in favour of the new one. The new one will have the name Cocoon Forms 2.0 and will be in the forms block.
I'm +1 for "forms" because this makes it very clear that there is only one and not more.
-- Reinhard
