Message-ID: <470674A4.7070905@commandprompt.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:30:12 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070924)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
References: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use "Postgres" 
> alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the documentation and other 
> written resources.  A change along that line has already been made in the 
> FAQ.

> I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near 
> the beginning.  But the rest of the document should use one name 
> consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing.  Also consider that 
> many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more 
> important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to 
> understand.
> 
> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
> 

+1

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
			UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHBnSkATb/zqfZUUQRAnzIAJoCXVkeH9xioB0xEy4jWmhN8iCE5QCgpFQN
HY0MrmdBT63sZ8uFIS75aL0=
=f8I/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----