- The name "scripted document" does very little to convey what scripted documents are all about.
- The instructions for creating and using scripted documents are scattered hither and thither.
- We need a better, more communicative name.
- We need a concise set of instructions for application authors.
How about .dar for Dynamic Archive? (or djar, or dtar, or...)... or .sar for Scripted (scriptable?) Archive.
Close :o) ... the new name is "Starkit" -jcwStarkit is the concept (STandAlone Runtime), the extension is ".kit" ... (the association with ar/jar/tar only has mnemonic value for programmers).Trivia: the name came about over a nice lunch with Steve Landers, Steve Blinkhorn, and jcw, one day in Feb 2002. Steve B said "yes, that would work"... and boy he sure was right!That sounds good to me -- Vince.escargo 29 Apr 2003 - Let me chime in with WHD and say that "Starkit" or "starkit" has a problem with the name. "StandAlone Runtime" tells me that the runtime is standalone, not that the application is self-contained. (It sounds more like a statically linked runtime, as opposed to a runtime that dynamically loads its required libraries.) Now, I am not saying the creators do not have a right to name it what they want; but there might be a name (or a file extension or both) that conveys to the less informed audience what such files are good for.Whoops, someone has been editing this page a bit too energetically - I've restored it to its original intent, i.e. a complaint about scripted document, not "starkit"... -jcwLars H notes in passing (4 May 2003) that it was lucky that JCW was lucky in picking STandAlone Runtime, instead of the slightly more obvious StandAlone Runtime, since SARs are getting a lot of bad publicity these days. ;-)Steve Blinkhorn A bit more trivia. Over that very nice lunch, we did toy with the idea that starkits might actually be *kits, starpacks *packs, and that the archive would be a *chive, but jcw's fondness for the acronym has clearly triumphed.