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
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
