Subject: Re: Atom 1.0?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 02:17:21 EDT

In a message dated 10/05/2005 03:29:16 GMT Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> 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

"Atom 1.0" was the term we (Danny Ayers and I) used to refer forward to the 
just-about-to-be version of Atom in Beginning RSS & Atom Programming.

And "Atom 0.3" was the term used to refer to the existing version. Given the 
existence of that version, and assuming that the intention is still to use the 
term "Atom" at all (I assume it is) then a version number is essential in my 
opinion to distinguish the pukka stuff from Atom 0.3.

So "Atom 1.0" would get my vote.

BTW where did the "WB consensus" of avoiding a version number come from? At 
first sight that seems a daft idea. It also conveys a hint of immodesty and a 
lack of foresight as if the WG hadn't envisaged that its work could ever be 
improved upon, that nobody would ever want to change it. Totally unrealistic in 
my view.

Andrew Watt