Subject: Atom 1.0?

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:29:58 -0700

Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an RFC 
number?

We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that version to 
distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough deployed that 
it'll be with us for a while.  Per WG consensus, an Atom doc has no 
version stamp.  So there'll be no actual spec-based reason to call our 
product "Atom 1.0".  But, we could just go ahead and do it anyhow.

Anyone have a better idea? --Tim

---

From: Jeff Rodenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:54:02 -0700

Tim Bray wrote:

> We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that version 
> to distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough deployed that 
First time commenting on the list, be gentle.  :-)

+1 on Tim's suggestion to use "Atom 1.0".  "Atom 0.3" more or less 
dictates that future version numbers will be referenced in practical 
usage, so the 1.0 name seems natural.  Additionally, it would be 
unfortunate to be lumped in with RSS in terms of selecting terminology 
related to versions of the specification (2.0 before 1.0?)

These are superficial reasons, but my belief is that this specification 
will introduce a lot of publishers to the world of syndication.  A good 
name will go a long way to pushing adoption of the specification.

Thanks,
Jeff Rodenburg

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 21:09:27 -0700

> Anyone have a better idea? --Tim

Hey, let's vote on a *new* name. I'm +1 on "Naked News", because
it delivers the news without chrome and crap. Or maybe that is what
you get when Atom (Adam?) goes public. Or because sex sells.

Seriously, I don't mind "Atom 1.0" as long as the next version is
"Atom 2.0". Please don't increment the right-of-the-dot part forever,
because I just had to fix some software that made the (reasonable)
assumption that 5.10==5.1, even though "5.10" is really Solaris 10.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity

---

From: Dave Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:44:28 -0400

On May 9, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> So there'll be no actual spec-based reason to call our product  
> "Atom 1.0".  But, we could just go ahead and do it anyhow.

+1 : it's The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work.

    -d.w.

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:27:11 +0100

On 10 May 2005, at 3:29 am, Tim Bray wrote:

> Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an  
> RFC number?
>
> We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that  
> version to distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough  
> deployed that it'll be with us for a while.  Per WG consensus, an  
> Atom doc has no version stamp.  So there'll be no actual spec-based  
> reason to call our product "Atom 1.0".  But, we could just go ahead  
> and do it anyhow.
>

Just "Atom", no version number. No one refers to HTTP or SMTP or POP  
or XML by their version numbers unless they have to. Including the  
version number makes it sound like their are other versions that  
matter, and for the moment, they're aren't.

Which sounds better?
"Atom 1.0 released"
"Atom is finished"

Graham

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:11:16 +0200

* Tim Bray <[email-masked]> [2005-05-10 04:40]:
> version to distinguish it from Atom 0.3

> there'll be no actual spec-based reason to call our product

+1 for "Atom 1.0" since a lot of people have already used that,
and given the provenance of "Atom 0.3". But it should remain
colloquial usage.

I would argue that another, probably equally colloquial term
should be introduced meanwhile, so that in the long term, the
"1.0" disappears from common usage. That would probably work best
if this new term includes an otherwise redundant qualifier that
people will eventually discard. I am thinking "IETF Atom" might
just fit the bill.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:45:08 +1000

> "Atom is finished"

"Atom is ready"

e.

---

From: Henri Sivonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:20:44 +0300

On May 10, 2005, at 05:29, Tim Bray wrote:

> Atom 1.0

+1 for Atom 1.0 in order to distinguish from 0.3.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
[email-masked]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:12:09 -0700

At 9:09 PM -0700 5/9/05, Walter Underwood wrote:
>"Atom 2.0".

+12

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:32:46 -0700

>> Seriously, I don't mind "Atom 1.0" as long as the next version is

I'd also be happy with just "Atom" and saying "RFC XXXX Atom" when
pressed for a version. Even with "Atom 1.0" we'll need to say which RFC.

If we choose a specific name, it *must* be in the RFC. Because the RFC
must be a hit for that search.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect
Verity Ultraseek

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:27:42 -0400

> must be a hit for that search.

Walter, that's a good point. How about:

Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFCxxxx)

?

Robert Sayre

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:44:03 +0100

> Technical: Atom (RFCxxxx)

Around Dave Winer: RFCxxxx

The only real problem with dropping the version number is making it  
clear there've been major changes since 0.3.

Graham

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:49:28 -0400

> Around Dave Winer: RFCxxxx

Let's not go there, ok?

> clear there've been major changes since 0.3.

Who are we trying to make it clear to? I think it will be clear to
developers no matter what, and irrelevant to everyone else.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:54:15 -0400

Walter Underwood wrote:
> pressed for a version.

+1

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:33:22 +0200

> must be a hit for that search.

We can Google-bomb that string I guess. (Atom 1.0.)

-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>

---

From: Robin Cover <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:44:27 -0400 (EDT)

Question: for what principal usage context(s) is this
name being designed?

I heard Tim say "quick, snappy label" ... to 
distinguish it from Atom 0.3"

Does this mean "the default name for the spec/product
in any context not requiring any attributes other than
version number and minimal title-string"?

The names of OASIS specs are legion, and the marketing
people found that trying to craft some optimal name
for the press only partly works.  Works only about as
well as orthographies legislated by language academies.
The reason is that different contexts demand different
identifiers.

Thus, if it's "Atom 1.0," (most) people won't say that in any
context where "Atom" will do; if it's "Atom," nobody will
say that once we have "Atom 2.0" and a need to refer to the
earlier version.

I'd vote for "Atom 1.0" or "Atom" rather than attempting to
enforce a name using "RFC...", which I think will never
supplant a name so snappy as "Atom".

Robin

PS  At least I'm happy that none of the candidates nominated so
far are as long at the L-O-N-G variants of OASIS specs, which
are obliged to posture to every brand element, and become do
long that you have to take a breath in the middle. 

--

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 03:00:56 -0700

> Technical: Atom (RFCxxxx)

I was gonna suggest that too.  I think RFC's are into the 4000-space 
these days so if we end up as RFC4321 we could call it "Atom 4321" and 
"Atom [see RFC4321]".  -Tim

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:42:22 +0200

+1

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:45:39 -0400

> > > Technical: Atom (RFCxxxx)

Hmm. I forgot one little detail. It might take like 4-6 months to get
an RFC number after IESG approval.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:27 +0200

> an RFC number after IESG approval.

Or even longer.

Draft 08 says about the Atom namespace:

    [[anchor4: This paragraph to be removed by the RFC Editor.  The
    namespace here is a temporary one and will be changed when the IESG
    approves this document as a standard.  At that time, the namespace
    will be drawn from W3C URI space.  The choice of that namespace will
    be coordinated between the IETF and W3C through their respective
    liaisons.]]

So when IESG approval happens and the draft is added to the RFC Editor's 
  publication queue, do we advertise the "final" namespace (and how?). 
If we don't, no software can support the Atom "1.0" format until the RFC 
is actually published...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Henri Sivonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:44:43 +0300

>>> Marketing: Atom

I'm looking forward to an article by Mark Pilgrim about the 
incompatible versions of Atom deceitfully marketed as one thing. :-)

(Which is why I said +1 to Atom 1.0.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
[email-masked]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:54:08 +0100

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 
>>>> Marketing: Atom
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to an article by Mark Pilgrim about the incompatible 
> versions of Atom deceitfully marketed as one thing. :-)
> 

ARSS, short for Atom RSS. The marketing possibilities are endless.

cheers
Bill

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:09:09 +0200

> ARSS, short for Atom RSS. The marketing possibilities are

How about Atom Syndication Standard?

I guess the Firefox crowd can then resurrect the non-Wifi looking
autodiscovery icon.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:56:52 -0600

> How about Atom Syndication Standard?

So, ASS = Atom Syndication Standard. Or is it Atom Standard for 
Syndication? Or is it Atom Site Summary?

ARSS = Atom Really Simple Syndication
ARSS = Atom Rich Site Summary
ARSS = Atom Replacement Syndication Standard
ARS = Atom Reformed Syndication
ARSE = Atom Revolutionary Syndication Experiment
ANR = Atom is Not RSS ... I guess that should be ANR is Not RSS
ANA0.3 = Atom is Not Atom 0.3, or ANA0.3 is Not Atom 0.3

Hey, maybe ATOM is an acronym and we didn't even know it. A Tired Old 
Metaphor. Hmm, not so good. A new Twist on an Old Method. Too many 
missing letters to explain away. After The Old Method. Same message, 
right letters. A Trick, Or Magic? From section 7. IANA Considerations: 
'Magic number(s): As specified for "application/xml" in [RFC3023], 
section 3.2.'--must be magic!

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:12:10 -0700

>an RFC number after IESG approval.

s/might/probably will/

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:13:41 -0700

At 4:30 PM +0200 5/11/05, Julian Reschke wrote:
>So when IESG approval happens and the draft is added to the RFC 
>Editor's  publication queue, do we advertise the "final" namespace 
>(and how?).

Yes, and on this mailing list and in a new draft whose one change 
(unless the IESG has asked for others) is to fill in that value and 
remove the note.

>  If we don't, no software can support the Atom "1.0" format until 
>the RFC is actually published...

Exactly right. So we won't do that.

--Paul Hoffman, Director