On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-
> query.asp?acronym=COB&String=exact&page=2
>
> even though I like "cranky old bastard"... expecially for times when
> the block won't work as expected ;-)
ROTFL
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.ote
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> As emerged with the discussion on Merlin Blocks vs. Cocoon Blocks, it
> has been asked that we avoid collission by moving our "proprietary"
> information on a different location.
>
> So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
>
> /BLOCK-IN
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Interesting stuff here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cob
I like the verb actually. Much more than one of the obsolete meanings ;-))
While we are at it, there are acronyms too:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=COB
I'd li
On Friday, Oct 3, 2003, at 16:41 Europe/Rome, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Thursday, Oct 2, 2003, at 23:17 Europe/Rome, Antonio Gallardo
wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1 Of course!
Just for cosmetic:
What about ACB-INF? or CB-INF?
ACB mea
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
--
Torsten
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Thursday, Oct 2, 2003, at 23:17 Europe/Rome, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1 Of course!
Just for cosmetic:
What about ACB-INF? or CB-INF?
ACB means "Apache Cocon Block".
"Cob" is easier to pronounce. ;-)
Interesting
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
>
> On Thursday, Oct 2, 2003, at 23:17 Europe/Rome, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
>>> /BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
>>
>> +1 Of course!
>>
>> Just for cosmetic:
>>
>> What about ACB-INF? or CB-INF?
>>
>> ACB means "Apache Cocon Block".
>
> "Cob" is easier
On Thursday, Oct 2, 2003, at 23:17 Europe/Rome, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1 Of course!
Just for cosmetic:
What about ACB-INF? or CB-INF?
ACB means "Apache Cocon Block".
"Cob" is easier to pronounce. ;-)
--
Stefano.
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
> /BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1 Of course!
Just for cosmetic:
What about ACB-INF? or CB-INF?
ACB means "Apache Cocon Block".
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Tony Collen wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[snip]
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1... onward to true blocks!
I am +1 because I agree we need to get going and there's not a clear
symbiosis at this time.
I am however concerned that we're closing
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
As emerged with the discussion on Merlin Blocks vs. Cocoon Blocks, it
has been asked that we avoid collission by moving our "proprietary"
information on a different location.
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
+1. Without the microsoft CLI, it is fairly safe to assume that COBOL
or COBOL.NET would not be a thread here.
s/thread/threat/
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Fran
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
As emerged with the discussion on Merlin Blocks vs. Cocoon Blocks, it
has been asked that we avoid collission by moving our "proprietary"
information on a different location.
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
--
Sylvain
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
As emerged with the discussion on Merlin Blocks vs. Cocoon Blocks, it
has been asked that we avoid collission by moving our "proprietary"
information on a different location.
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
/COCOON-INF/ w
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
From: Stefano Mazzocchi
> So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
>
> /BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
...
Hopefully that will not conflict with some COBOL information directory.
LOL! :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
>
> /BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
Andrew.
--
Andrew SavoryEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658
Lumina
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[snip]
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1... onward to true blocks!
Tony
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Hopefully that will not conflict with some COBOL information directory.
http://www.google.com/search?q=COB-INF
+1
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XMLAn Orixo Member
Read my weblog at
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
As emerged with the discussion on Merlin Blocks vs. Cocoon Blocks, it
has been asked that we avoid collission by moving our "proprietary"
information on a different location.
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
Ciao,
--
G
> /BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
Carsten
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
+1
-Bertrand
As emerged with the discussion on Merlin Blocks vs. Cocoon Blocks, it
has been asked that we avoid collission by moving our "proprietary"
information on a different location.
So, as Berin suggested, vote on the proposed change:
/BLOCK-INF/ -> /COB-INF/
/COCOON-INF/ was proposed but I like /CO
24 matches
Mail list logo
