Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
From: Jeffrey Bosboom (jbosboom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-09 19:59:59

Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
>> Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
>>> I don't think this is self-descriptive enough.  For
>>> example, GIL is a
>>> Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use
>>> with" Boost.
>>> But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially
>>> part of" Boost.
>> To clarify, I mean that a GIL extension that has not gone
>> through the Boost review process would probably display "for
>> use with".  But since extensions are "for use with" by nature,
>> the special designator on the logo would not seem 'out of
>> place' enough for a documentation reader to realize it means
>> "not official".
> 
> Please suggest an alternative.  We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries.  If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it.  We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.

If the message we want to convey is that the library is not part of 
Boost, perhaps we should just say "not part of [boost C++ libraries]". 
This might cause some reader confusion as to why the logo is used at 
all, but it makes very clear that no official approval has been granted.

--Jeffrey Bosboom