robert at ocallahan.org
Fri, 03 Dec 2004 11:24:50 -0500
Benjamin D. Smedberg wrote:
> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> I don't like the name 'libxul'. Most embedders think they're
>> embedding Gecko, not XUL. Seems to me it would make a lot more sense
>> to call it "libgecko".
> At first I thought I didn't care; now I realize I do:
> Whatever we name this beast, it needs to be pithy, descriptive, and
> obvious. KHTML is a great name for a web engine: it tells you
> basically what you're getting.
> libgecko is a poor name. Gecko is a codename. Certainly, it's a
> well-known codename, with more public awareness than "trident" or even
> khtml, but it's not descriptive or obvious. An illustrious heritage
> does not a good name make.
Sounds reasonable, but by those reasons libxul is even worse than
libgecko for the audience of HTML embedders.
How about something based on "Mozilla", e.g. libmoz or libmozilla? (I
hear Ben's comment about Windows developers and the lib- prefix, but I
can't think of a better affix. ActiveGecko!)
Robert O'Callahan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We
have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the
Father, full of grace and truth." 1 John 1:1,14