Question: for what principal usage context(s) is this name being designed?
I heard Tim say "quick, snappy label" ... to distinguish it from Atom 0.3" Does this mean "the default name for the spec/product in any context not requiring any attributes other than version number and minimal title-string"? The names of OASIS specs are legion, and the marketing people found that trying to craft some optimal name for the press only partly works. Works only about as well as orthographies legislated by language academies. The reason is that different contexts demand different identifiers. Thus, if it's "Atom 1.0," (most) people won't say that in any context where "Atom" will do; if it's "Atom," nobody will say that once we have "Atom 2.0" and a need to refer to the earlier version. I'd vote for "Atom 1.0" or "Atom" rather than attempting to enforce a name using "RFC...", which I think will never supplant a name so snappy as "Atom". Robin PS At least I'm happy that none of the candidates nominated so far are as long at the L-O-N-G variants of OASIS specs, which are obliged to posture to every brand element, and become do long that you have to take a breath in the middle. --
