[ANSI-Smalltalk] What's in a name?

[Bruce Badger]

On 22/02/2008, Steve Wart <steve.wart at gmail.com> wrote:

> It also makes more sense if instead of one monolithic standard we prefer
> different standards documents for different parts of Smalltalk.

I expect that, following Paolo's proposed process, we will produce
many RFC-like specifications.  I hope that the formal ANSI work will
be substantially based on the work that we do using our open and
transparent process, but I don't expect the ANSI project to be able to
absorb all of the things we have specified as soon as we produce it,
and some specifications may be considered to go beyond what ought be
included in a formal standard and so may never make it into the formal
ANSI standard ... but they are still valuable.

In short I think we'll have quite a few bits and pieces over time that
will all funnel into something we might call "a standard" (singular),
but at any one time I suspect that we will have many active bits.

... so I like "Smalltalk Standards Project" (plural).

FWIW.

Shall we have a vote? :-)

-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/