[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Atom 1.0?

To: Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Atom 1.0?
From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:29:58 -0700
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atom 1.0?
  - From: Henri Sivonen
- Re: Atom 1.0?
  - From: A. Pagaltzis
- Re: Atom 1.0?
  - From: Graham
- Re: Atom 1.0?
  - From: Dave Walker
- Re: Atom 1.0?
  - From: Walter Underwood
- Re: Atom 1.0?
  - From: Jeff Rodenburg

Prev by Date: Re: PaceFeedIdOrSelf
Next by Date: Re: extensions -- Atom NS and unprefixed attributes
Previous by thread: extensions -- Atom NS and unprefixed attributes
Next by thread: Re: Atom 1.0?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread