On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Steven Edwards wrote: [...] > > gdi > > printing [...] > Yes I second this motion. The components should be named as simply as > possible. Users are going to be the ones filing the reports and > whoever is doing triage is going to have to move it around if its in > the wrong area. Abstract names like DirectX, Sound, Graphics, > Installers and Printing are a much better idea than dllnames. [...]
Sounds good to me too. But just for the sake of it, I will mention that we have keywords too. So we can have broad categories like 'printing' and 'display', and dll-specific keywords like 'gdi32' and 'comctl32'. Or we can do the opposite and have broad keywords for 'printing' and 'display', and then dll-specific categories. Or we could stay with the current scheme because both of the above may be abuses of the keyword system. Up to you. One more issue to raise: is the reason why we have 'wine-' as the prefix to avoid conflicts between different products? That is, if we have a 'printing' category in the 'Wine' product, is it going to interfer with the 'printing' category of a 'Wine-doc' product? -- Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fgouget.free.fr/ May your Tongue stick to the Roof of your Mouth with the Force of a Thousand Caramels.