Re: Atom 1.0?

[Jeff Rodenburg <jrodenburg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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