Subject: PaceRenameImageToLogo

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:14:27 -0600

Not having generated any response by suggesting this without a Pace, 
I've written a Pace.  If a miracle happens and no one denounces this 
idea as certain to destroy the Atom format (or otherwise gives it a 
-1), but no one but me gives it a +1, would that be enough to call it 
the consensus opinion of those who care?

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceRenameImageToLogo

== Abstract ==

What the "atom:image" element describes is a logo for the feed--let's 
call it "atom:logo".

== Status ==

New

== Rationale ==

Calling this element "image" provides no benefits over calling it 
"logo", but does have potential drawbacks:

Section 4.2.8 of draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.txt states:

  The "atom:image" element's content is an IRI reference [RFC3987] which 
identifies an image which provides visual identification for a feed.

The word "logo" more precisely matches this description than the more 
general term "image".

Using the name "image" could lead to confusion if an extension element 
is introduced for, for example, associating an image with an entry.

== Proposal ==

Change the name of the "atom:image" element to "atom:logo".

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 08:59:47 -0700

At 9:14 AM -0600 5/9/05, Antone Roundy wrote:
>If a miracle happens and no one denounces this idea as certain to 
>destroy the Atom format (or otherwise gives it a -1), but no one but 
>me gives it a +1, would that be enough to call it the consensus 
>opinion of those who care?

No. Consensus means that many active people think it is a good idea.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 03:51:38 +1000

> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceRenameImageToLogo

+1