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: 2010-02-01 16:22:49
Stewart, Robert wrote: (...but patrick has done a lot of elision...)
> BjÃ¸rn Roald wrote:
>> I dislike the "under construction" variant. If we keep it it
>> should be changed to "under construction for" two-liner, but
>> I think "preliminary proposal for" cover tat use case better.
> I agree that "for" is needed with "under construction," but splitting "under construction for" into two lines won't look right any way you try it.
I put up an "under construction for" for your perusal. Wouldn't it be
fun to replace the graphic at left with some sort of construction
equipment? I'd whip it up, but I suspect that changing the graphic
rather than overlaying text as we are would legally dilute the logo. Is
this logo a registered trademark? If it is, I think that you can add
new and different icons, but derivative ones can't change the basic
registered form. I could just be making that up. Does anyone know the law?
> I like the idea of limiting the variations of the logo.
There seems to be consensus on that, but the discussion is only about 3
>> preliminary proposal for
> I don't like that. Until something is proposed, it isn't a proposal. How about "developing for" or "creating for?" The present participle implies ongoing work.
I would maintain that it would be a bit premature to put a boost icon on
a project before it's a proposal. Even with PROPOSAL FOR, there will be
a problem some day, with someone who has never contacted boost and has
nothing to do with boost will quite unethically associate a PROPOSAL FOR
icon with their software to gain panache. A DEVELOPING FOR icon would
encourage this and is also somewhat unclear. Next thing you know people
will want one that says "has nothing to do with";)
>> proposal for
> I like Patrick's "proposed for" better. The past participle implies that the library has been proposed and is awaiting review.
n.b. it wasn't mine, Robert Ramey suggested "proposed", and Dean Michael
Berris did an original png graphic. They started this discussion in
another thread. I am merely the channel who puts these things on the
graphics;) I like "proposed for" better too, for your reasons, because
it's more active, and because graphically it works better.
So I'd like to trim down the web page so I can move the discussion to
sizes that should be available. Are there any that you feel are right out?
These MIGHT BE REMOVED from discussion: (feel free to argue for ones you
like or to propose others--although I seem an authoritative voice, I'm
really just pushy;)
o DESIGNED FOR - unclear what this means--designed to work with, or work
o PROPOSAL FOR - proposed for is better
o ACCEPTED FOR - after you're accepted you could just use the boost logo.
o SKETCH PROPOSAL FOR - seems unclear to native US English speakers what
o PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR - as far as boost is concerned it's either a
proposal at some stage or not and if it is you could use PROPOSED FOR.
o UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR - same arguments as PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR,
seems that you could just use PROPOSED FOR.
I like the idea of keeping both POWERED BY and USING even though they
essentially mean the same thing, because the first is more exciting and
edgy, which is what some projects would want, but others would prefer to
use staid old USING. I definitely prefer POWERED BY myself, but think
that there would be wide variance in opinion.
So, that would leave the USING/POWERED BY pair, the PROPOSED FOR, and
the regular boost icon which already exists and isn't part of this
discussion. That's my 7 3/4 cents.
Same comments on PROPOSED FOR as UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR--wouldn't a
crane or bulldozer look cool for the graphic?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk