[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
+1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Morbus Iff
> Sent: 25 September 2003 01:05
> To: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
>
>
>
>
> Also posted here: http://www.disobey.com/dnn/2003/09/index.shtml#001550
>
>
> I would like to propose, nay, admonish, that the name of the
> format and spec
> should be Atom, that the current naming vote should be killed,
> and we should
> move on to grander things without the auspices of "what's it
> called?!" over
> our heads. This has been going on far too long.
>
> * "what to name it?" has been an issue since the wiki started. unsolved.
>
> * in every press mention, it's always been referred to,
> somewhere, somehow
> with the Atom moniker (individually or as multiple choice like
> "atom/echo/pie").
>
> * 'Atom' is becoming ubiquotous, both in our day to day discussions on
> this mailing list (contextually and titular, i.e.
> 'atom-syntax'), in the
> titles of the Wiki ('Atom Wiki'), and in regular chat (save for the
> entropied #echo IRC channel).
>
> * The current NameFinalVote wiki page shows very little participation,
> suggesting that no one really gives a damn. Likewise, the voting is
> proactive, not reactive (impending doom is more inspiring than
> lackadaisical choice). The vote should be replaced with something akin
> to: "Within {1 weeks time}, if a substantial amount of people raise no
> fuss, the official name of our format will be called Atom." If
> people can
> give good reasons WHY it should not be called Atom, in contest of this
> email, then that's reason to listen. However, it's more
> important to get
> this naming finalized, however.
>
> Why Would Changing To 'Nota' Suck?
>
> * Re-education of the Press. As mentioned previously, they've all been
> using 'Atom' somehow or another, and renaming it to something different
> will cause confusion, explanatory backsteps that every editor
> hates, and
> an alienating of readership ('wait, i thought this was atom?
> why the name
> change? huh?'). Likewise, 'Related Articles' links will lose
> their charm
> ('i'm reading about Nota, what's this Atom crap?').
>
> * Re-coding of Projects. Due to Atom's ubiquity, much effort would need
> to be spent banishing the old name, heralding link-rot like never
> before. All atom-syntax archives and links would need to be forwarded
> to a NAME-syntax replacement, all Wiki pages would have to change
> (and searching for 'NAME' within your saved existing bookmarks would
> fail miserably), and more.
>
> * We'd Lose Search Magic. Searching for NAME will have little effect for
> months after the change, even though there's a wealth of good
> information
> out there.
>
> * People Will Misunderstand. They'll think it's a fork, a poor
> replacement
> (once a name becomes popular lexicon like Atom has, any up-and-coming
> replacement is distasteful), or totally unnecessary this late in the
> game. Some people will continue to call NAME 'Atom', causing more
> confusion than necessary (is it 'Really Simple Syndication'? 'Rich Site
> Summary'? 'RDF Site Summary'? How many times have you read an
> "either or"
> statement like this in the press concerning RSS. Do we want this?).
>
> * Besides the above, 'Nota' has a very crucial misstep, already mentioned
> on the Wiki discussion: it's not indicative of pronunciation. Is it
> "NotAGoodReplacement" or "Note-a"? Do we really want to release an .mp3
> of us saying the word (as PostgreSQL has done). More
> importantly, can you
> think of any OTHER product, company name, or item that has an immediate
> pronunciation problem? This is, IMO, the biggest nail in Nota's coffin.
>
> I really can't believe the naming has been *allowed* to go on this long. I
> don't even start projects without a name and some sketches of a
> logo - they
> can make or break a product, and any revisionist history now will
> certainly
> harm the format.
>
> But, but, Morbus! You've forgotten about the legal issues!
>
> http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomTrademarkConflicts
> http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomNameDiscuss
>
> Quite deliberately, and so should you. If it does in fact become a legal
> issue, we will have a *reason* for changing the name; one we can quickly
> whip out when *anyone* questions us for changing the name. There's no herd
> voting, no "well, you know, because, uh...", no "just because".
> And, as the
> above two URLs attest to, there are already multiple companies using some
> form of Atom, and there have been no desist letters sent. If
> these URLs were
> any powerful indication of the feelings of people (besides the
> ever-popular
> "LOOK! I CONTRIBUTED MY TWO CENTS TO THE MAKING OF THE NEXT BIGGEST THING!
> OOOOH!"), then Atom would never have become as ubiquitous as it were.
>
> --
> Morbus Iff ( you shouldn't have come here )
> Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779
> Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
> icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus