Re: camels

[David Golden]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis  wrote:
> It’s unrecognisable at favicon size. The camel is distinctive
> down to a handful of pixels. And if you add a shell to it, so can
> a pearl be. In fact a pearl in a shell is what iX magazine in
> Germany has used as the masthead for their on-and-off Perl column
> for at least a decade.

Or how about a string of pearls looped artistically in the shape of a "P"?

My bikeshed is green,
David

Re: camels

[Aristotle Pagaltzis]

* Ricardo Signes  [2010-01-03 14:35]:
> It would be a shocking display of benevolence on the part of
> O'Reilly to "give up" the camel.  And... "live dangerously?"
> Do you mean: "piss off the publisher of many useful Perl books,
> opening ourselves to lawsuits and ostracism?"
>
> That's not a good plan.

I cannot help noticing how this parallels the rationalisations of
people in an abusive relationship…


* Ricardo Signes  [2010-01-03 14:35]:
> The problems with pearls include: (a) promoting mispeling Perl
> as Pearl and (b) a pearl reduces, in its simplest depiction, to
> a circle. It's not very visually distinctive.
>
> An onion can be pretty pared down before you lose sight of what
> it is.

It’s unrecognisable at favicon size. The camel is distinctive
down to a handful of pixels. And if you add a shell to it, so can
a pearl be. In fact a pearl in a shell is what iX magazine in
Germany has used as the masthead for their on-and-off Perl column
for at least a decade.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis //