On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbo...@apache.org wrote: > >> Author: rbowen >> Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010 >> New Revision: 923712 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712&view=rev >> Log: >> In as much as we can be said to have consensus on anything at all, we >> appear to have consensus that we will refer to the product (in the >> documentation) as Apache HTTPD, or HTTPD for short, and to the server >> binary executable as <code>httpd</code>. Here's a few changes to that >> effect. > > I thought the only people who ever capitalize HTTP in httpd are > clueless lawyers. httpd is the product name.
We've never been even remotely consistent about the name of the product. In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible confusion between the product and the command. In other places, we use Apache HTTP Server, but then when we switch to httpd because it's less wordy or fits the sentence better, it's not at all clear that httpd and Apache HTTP Server mean the same thing. In a few places, we use Apache Web Server, just for variety (and, I've heard it argued, because it can serve over more than just HTTP). > It is not, and never > has been, HTTPD, HTTPd, or any other misspelling of d. It's that > bloody thing we put in the package name, like I don't really see how the package name proves anything - Tomcat packages have names like apache-tomcat-5.5.28.tar.gz, but I've never been called clueless (or a lawyer) for capitalising the project name differently to the package name. Sure, httpd makes sense as an all-small command. But I see no reason that it's stupid to distinguish between the command and the product, and nothing you've said convinces me that HTTPD or HTTPD or Httpd or any other product name that removes the ambiguity is any worse than calling the product "Web Server". Noirin
