[Zope3-dev] Re: Re: Post-Sprint Doc-Team report (fwd)

[Martijn Faassen]

holger krekel wrote:
> Plus 'zc' arguably breaks the rule of 'no abbreviations' at the
> very first level.  I don't see the point of saving two characters here.

There is no such rule; the rule is "Don't shy away from acronyms" (or well
known abbreviations). That may not be the case here, of course. The
argument that 'zc' sounds too much like a company name is also valid,
but not overly worrying to me if we make clear it stands for 'zope community'
as well.

The point however is not to save two characters here, but to rename it
into something else than 'Zope', and to name *App* into Zope. Zope has
always meant "the application server" to people up till now, and now 
in Zope 3 we're suddenly naming this 'App' and 'Zope' has the meaning "the
package that contains packages that can be used outside of Zope (except App)".
And then we have to explain that "No, Zope is actually not implemented in
'zope', it's in "Zope.App".
 
That 'except App' is actually suggestive of another refinement. Where now
we have:

python
  Zope 
     App
     reusable packages 

what about:

python
  zc (was Zope, minus 'App')
    reusable packages
  zope (was App)

'zope' *depends* on 'zc'. 'zc' can't import anything from 'zope'. This may
be much more comprehensible to people. And we can shorten imports a bit
more as well in the 'zope' package.

Anyway, I don't really care if we rename 'zc' into something else; I would
just not like it to be named 'zope'.

Regards,

Martijn