Subject: Re: Atom 1.0?

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:37:59 -0600

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.
>
> Anyone have a better idea? --Tim

<non:serious response="joke">

Let's see: "Atom NT", "Atom ME", "Atom XP", "Atom 05"...  Just kidding. 
  How about "AtomRSS X 1.0 Lynx" or "iAtom"?  Yeah, yeah, ha ha.  
Atom++?  Atom Ion?  "an electrically charged particle"...fits the tone 
of the discussion here.  "Atom Isotope" would avoid that connotation.  
"Atom H" ("H" = "hydrogen", this first element in the periodic table).  
"Atom Xe" might work if it were only for archives (Xe = "xenon", an 
inert gas).  "Atom Ra" might be good for referring back to some of the 
earlier drafts ("Ra" = "radium"...unstable).  "Atom Cs" ("Cs" = 
Caesium...we've finally "caesed" arguing and finalized the spec).  
"Atom Ba" ("Ba" = "barium"...we can't bear to continue working on the 
spec...nor to read anymore such jokes?  Okay, I'll quit.)

</non:serious>

Seriously though, if we just call it "Atom", no one will know whether 
we're talking about 0.3 or 
the-format-formerly-known-as-Atom-0.3-before-it-was-finalized, so I 
think we've got to tack something on to it.  It can either be a number, 
a descriptive name, or a non-descriptive name.  A non-descriptive name 
might require too much explanation, even if it sounded cool.  A 
descriptive name?  Might be hard to come up with and/or be too long: 
"Atom: first standardized edition?"  "Atom 1.0" is certainly the 
easiest way to get the point across.  But yeah, it's an odd choice in a 
way.

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 23:48:07 -0400

> > Anyone have a better idea? --Tim

I like "Atom".

> <non:serious response="joke">

Foghorn?
Liger?
Atom 2005 MX Killer Whale?

---

From: Karl Dubost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:10:13 -0400

> I like "Atom".

Fear the non versioning. And yes there will be new version.
I would even go as far to be sure to be able to identify the language  
in the document itself. The namespace should be enough for that.
CSS was defined without versioning in mind and it's now a mess for  
tools developers.

+1 to the suggestion of Atom 1.0

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***