Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-09 17:21:57
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> > One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation
> > should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is
> > rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we
> > should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive
> > action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is
> > sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that
> > case, or so we thought.
> "unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of
> "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"? I
> hope guys
> with native English might come up with a few more wordings.
I am a native English speaker and I suggested "for use with."
> "For use with" just doesn't describe the work as a possible
> addition to Boost
> (that is, in order to use it, you will have to integrate it
> with Boost).
That's right. I am trying to avoid saying that much because the library may never be submitted for review, much less be accepted. If the library languishes or is rejected and is developed in some other context than Boost, numerous other wordings imply more than I'd like.
"For use with" means something has been designed to work with Boost whether by extending or complementing what's provided by Boost or by virtue of ultimately being submitted for review and, hopefully, acceptance. Upon acceptance, a library author will happily change to the official logo.
> And in that regard it has the semantics very close to the
> "powered by" variant.
Not at all. "Powered by" means a product uses Boost. Nothing more. There's no claim of interoperability with or eventual submission to Boost.
> I would like the logo to make it clear that the work
> is tightly coupled with Boost infrastructure, as opposed
That runs counter to the concern I expressed above: that a work that is rejected and taken elsewhere requires positive action by the author to remove the strong association with Boost which is tantamount to sanction. I'd prefer a more benign association.
> We could also move away from the current attempt to put together the
> current logo and some phrase into a sentence. After all, a newly
> designed logo that simply says "[boost] extension" and differs enough
> from the official logo might be what we're looking for. We could also
> get rid of that screaming red color I so dislike.
I have no problem with a redesigned logo. Perhaps shrinking the original logo and overpowering it with the added text would work. I'd still go for a different color or other stylistic treatment of the text, even if it isn't red. Something like this:
BEING DEVELOPED FOR
POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN
<> C++ Libraries
The original logo could go to the lower right, too:
FOR POSSIBLE <> Boost
INCLUSION IN <> C++ Libraries
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk