Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-31 16:33:56
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 01/31/2010 02:56 PM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
>> Wasn't there a "rejected proposal for" logo? I guess it was dropped
>> for the same reason that "under construction for" was renamed to
>> "under construction". How about "in preparation for" and "rejected
>> by"? These would at least make a statement about the relation to
> IMHO, the "rejected" logo makes a disservice for the library, as it
> marks it as something of inappropriate quality for Boost in eyes of
> users. Therefore I'd like it to be rephrased to something more
> neutral, such as "unofficial extension" or something of that kind.
LOL! I can't imagine anyone would proudly proclaim "my software was
rejected by boost!" If they are rejected by boost though, they have no
business showing a boost logo associated with their software (unless
they're using boost, then they could have the using boost logo).
I agree that things like using should be blue. I feel that things that
say, "I'm not a part of boost yet but I want to be", should be in red so
that people notice that this isn't boost.
I'm glad to see some good conversation here. What's the difference
between "proposed for" and "under construction for", and is it a big
enough difference to have both?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk