On 3/17/2010 3:02 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I didn't think that the patch would incur the wrath of Roy.
I did - which is why my initial response was, uhm, direct. I'm sorry if it also came off as opinionated or confrontational, I was just trying to avert the previously-fought battle from reappearing. I think it's worth noting that our English language expert can easily derive "HTTPD" or "HTTPd" forms, so I don't know that Roy's blanket criticism of the users/legal/whatever communities is really warranted. It just points out that you need to think of any proposed name in terms of its plural, possessive and other non-normative forms, and railing against flaws of the English language is about a 1000 year old sport :) Nothing Roy pointed out affects the "next version of httpd" (other than speaking for potential bastardizations of "The HTTP Protocol", of which he is still an active editor). It's not too early to start talking (in trunk/STATUS?) of names for the next httpd, e.g. 3.0. If we want to call it "Dee" or whatever, let the naming begin :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
