Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-04 16:42:12
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> "Developing for Boost" works fine for me too, but "Under construction for" works
I wish we could come up with better wording. If I told you I was
developing for Adobe, or that a library was under construction for
Apple, you would assume a connection between me and them that we don't
want to imply by this logo. I think in this case the word "for" may be
part of the problem. Somehow we want to say in a short phrase, "This is
not in any way part of, nor associated with boost, but I plan on
submitting it later if I get to that point."
"Possible Future Submission to"
"Intend to submit to"
"Might be a Submission to"
"Preliminary proposal for"
"Library Sketch For"
"Not the" (just kidding;)
"Developing with the thought that I might later submit to"
That said, it's just a place holder. If we can't come up with something
I'd be fine with using "powered by" as a place holder. After all it's
not as if someone couldn't come up with a great idea and add one more
> The main thing I think we are all trying to avoid is not-reviewed docs with the
> Boost logo, implying that they are reviewed and released.
Exactery:) I'm afraid that "developing for", or "under construction
for", would imply to the greater world, who doesn't know anything about
the boost submission procedure, that exactly this sort of official
I'm not at all opposed to the idea, just don't think that we've come up
with the right phrase, and believe that the wrong phrase is potentially
more harmful than just using "powered by". I'm sorry to be such a
nudge, but I don't want to create a problem similar to the one that we
are trying to solve.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk