On 02/09/2010 04:47 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
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.
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted? The issue was the potential ambiguity of designed for. It could mean, "I designed this for possible future inclusion in boost", or "I designed
Andrey Semashev wrote: this under contract from boost". One implies no real connection with boost, and the other an official connection with boost. We know the difference, but the vast bulk of the users of boost don't read this list and don't know how things work. The original purpose of this effort was to find something that someone could use as a placeholder for a proposed library that wouldn't imply to the general public a connection to boost, either during the different stages of proposal/submission, or if the submission was withdrawn, and the logo left in the documentation. It's been really hard because when we've come up with proposals for wording, of course we did it with a meaning in mind, and with the background of experience on this list. It's really hard to see the alternate meanings that a non-insider might come up with, but it's important to do. Please come up with alternatives though. It's really been a small conversation, and a larger conversation would be a good thing. I might mention that I don't think that anyone came up with either "Boosted by boost", or "Goosed by boost" as an alternative to "Powered by boost". Isn't that a good thing;) Patrick