Mailing-List: contact fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Reply-To: <vic@outfitr.com>
From: "Victor Mote" <vic@outfitr.com>
To: <fop-dev@xml.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] doc validation fix
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:13:11 -0700
Message-ID: <PAEOKILLLBAPHPPDDBNLKEBNDFAA.vic@outfitr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20030111173109.D355.DEV.JEREMIAS@greenmail.ch>

Jeremias Maerki wrote:

> - Do we like our current logo? :-)

I hope I am not out of line to ask an even more fundamental question -- do
we like our current name? I never have a problem writing it, but when
speaking it, I cannot make my mouth say "fop", but invariably say
"eff-oh-pee" instead. Our root "FO" is a FOrtunate or perhaps FOrtuitous
one, as there are many English words that start with these letters, and
probably many more that contain them. FOr(r)est might have been good (since
we seem to work with trees a lot), but is taken. FOrward, FOcus, or even
FOreword might each work, or efFOrtless (????). How about FOliage (with a
leaf logo)? Or perhaps a Latin word to reflect our international crew --
FOcus (again), or FOrtis, or FOrum. I also like Oleg's idea of throwing it
out to the user community.

If we wanted to make a change, it will be easier now than after a 1.0
release. There are certainly drawbacks even now. I don't strongly dislike
the current name, but it would have been far down my list (below FOist and
FOghorn, above FOlly, FOreclose, and FOrgery). I realize that old-timers
especially might not like the idea of changing. So I apologize in advance
for raising the issue, but I think it better to do so now than later.

Now, I need to answer Jeremias' FOnt questions.

Victor Mote


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org