Marco Baringer <mb@bese.it> writes:
3) i don't want to offend anyone's tastes but i find the common-lisp.net site a little plain. i tried to come up with something a bit more colorful:
http://www.bese.it/~segv/common-lisp.net/index2.html http://www.bese.it/~segv/common-lisp.net/index3.html
i don't like those two designs either, but hey, i gave it my best. if you like 'em, use 'em; if you hate 'em, ignore 'em; if this is really arrogant and presumptuos of me ... sorry.
It's ok. I don't like your designs either :-) Design is always a matter of taste, so it is impossible to satisfy everyone. The current design is not meant to last 'till the end of times, btw.
4) i've been following the project naming discussion on irc and admin@common-lisp.net, if i may: how many different rfc2833 implementations for common lisp are there? I think that as long as the names are discriptive (says he who calls his projects fiveam and arnesi) whatever people want should be fine. the existence of a project called rfc???? will at least push people to add features/improvements to that as opposed to using re-implementing it.
I slept over it, and decided that I don't think it is a problem to name things after the rfc, but maybe the authors want to reconsider, as few people start looking for things based on the rfc number. Probably cl-mime, or mime.lisp, or whatever, is a bit more descriptive. ...but I don't see any proplem with rfc???? names. (and btw, what does 'arnesi' mean?) Mario.