+1leenm wrote:It's bets to stay with the name.
leenm wrote:Tata wrote:I also think that keeping the "XH" is best corresponding to CMSimple_XH. It may be confusing to have different names for a website and for the software. Hm?
I agree. The name of the successor of CMSimple is CMSimple_XH. It's confusing if you have a website cmsimple-xh.de and cmsimple.eu. It's best to stay with the name.
...and future development has to be carried on by others...
wosee wrote:Don't get me wrong, but imho CMSimple_XH is a very confusing name and even looks stupid. I appreciate your work a lot, what you do is awesome, but I'd like to see CMSimple being developed rather than CMSimple_XH.
Gert wrote:as we was beginning, CMSimple 3.4 was not possible under Peters license conditions. Now the baby is born.
wosee wrote:I don't think that valid code is that important to be mentioned it in the name of the project. Valid code is a standard, or at least it should be!
The valid plugins could be contributed with these XH thing, to show that they generate valid code!
leenm wrote:So now it's possible (?)
Gert wrote:We have discussed some names by beginning, and the most wanted name for the baby was ..._XH. Now the domain is paid, the Google ranking is good, and I think cmsimple-xh.de is bookmarked in a lot of browsers.
And I think, we should present the new quality of CMSimle_XH by name. If we would take another name, other guys would not like that other name. Let's discuss and think about more important things
leenm wrote:so I won't mind which name it is, as long as it isn't confusing for anyone. That's most important for me.
And now @ all:
We have discussed some names by beginning ... Let's discuss and think about more important things "
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests