Subject: RE: Atom 1.0?

From: "Anil Dash" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:00:01 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:owner-atom-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Graham
> 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?
> 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

I think we should distinguish the technical conversation from the
marketing/evangelism name. I'd suggest Atom 1.0 for circumstances where
it's relevant (distinguishing within technical documentation) and Atom
by itself everywhere else, such as on the AtomEnabled site or on sidebar
buttons linking to a feed.

If you see "Atom 1.0" somewhere, it should only be in contexts where
someone knows what XML stands for, without having it explained.

Anil

__________________________________________________
Anil Dash                          +1 646 541 5843