Re: Try to social-engineer the protocol public name?

["M. David Peterson" <xmlhacker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Collecting referring to both Atom and APP as AtomPubSub would,

1) Purposely and specifically bring together both the Atom Syndication Format and the Atom Publishing Protocol into something that is easy to both say and write, as well as to understand from a noob perspective the primary purpose and focus of the combined protocols.
2) Would allow one to easily dereference one or the other using "AtomPub" or "AtomSub" while at the same time keeping the two of them together from a mental perspective.
3) Build on top of an existing acronym that is already in somewhat widespread use, w/o attempting to take ownership of that acronym.

On 6/20/07, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:

As Aristotle pointed out, what we're building seems to be slipping by
default into being referred to as "APP".   Could be worse, I suppose,
it's short and punchy.  Which means that it's only a matter of time
before people are saying "Does that app talk APP?"  The only
practical problem might be on the mac, which uses the .app extension,
but that doesn't seem like a biggie.

So this is an invitation.  Is there another, more compelling, name
that we should rally around for the Atom Publishing Protocol?  If we
all agreed informally to start using something, and got our employers
to do the same, it's (just barely) not too late to affect the
outcome.  "Atompub" and "Atom protocol" are OK, or we could just
always and consistently just say "Atom" and sort out the confusion
with RFC4287 down the road.  Better idea?  Or just go with the flow
and live with APP?

-- 
/M:D

M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | 
http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155