Atom Name Usage
-
Feeds
-
Atom Feed
-
Atomic Feed
-
Atom stream
-
Particle stream
-
Entries
-
an Atom
-
an Atom Entry
-
taglines
-
atomize your weblog.
-
atomic
-
Atom Powered
-
Atom Enabled
Alternate word forms
[ClosedPoll] Should we
-
encourage use of alternate word forms such as atomic feed, atomize your site
-
[JeremyGray] Yes, and produce a specific list. Comments below...
-
[ZhangYining] probably NO. Atomic feed? the entry has permaLink, so it's Durable, and surely it's Consistent, and Isolated, and we have an ACID entry? too confusing.
-
discourage use of any reference except atom.
-
do nothing about this [FrançoisGranger]
Discuss
[TimBray] I think changing the basic <entry> tag to <atom> in the XML syntax would be harmless and mildly amusing, and hey, it's one less letter.
-
[NickChalko RefactorOk] I disagree. It sounds cool, but then we name things, molecules, and particles, and quarks. And the mental naming model gets all crazy.
-
A wise man once suggested that we not branch off into inventions on this project but just document and rationalize current practices in a cleanly specified way so that innovation can take place around a stable core. Let's not reinvent the vocabulary either. Take Anil's point that the tech mavens should reign in the realm of the data model and that branding/marketing genii should take a firm hand with the nomenclature.
[TomasJogin] Reading the above examples of usage of the Atom name, it just makes less and less sense. Why is an entry called an "atom"? What does any of this have to do with atoms or molecules or particles? If we extend on this "atom" analogy (which is probably unavoidable) we'll marginalize ourself into oblivion; talk of atoms and monecules, quarks and what not is scientific connotation that normal people (myself included) can't embrace.
-
[NickChalko RefactorOk] I agree, use of molecule, quark etc for "parts" of our API and data model is a BAD IDEA.
-
[TomasJogin] Yes. But how can it possibly be avoided? People tend to invent or shoehorn concepts into analogies and metaphors, and it's already happening.
[DannyAyers] Which definition fits better : entry (an item inserted or included) or atom (a usually undivisible part)?
[FrançoisGranger] Let people do as they think. Usage will say what is the best.
[JonathanSmith] So, now will this wiki be known as the Trinity Site?
-
[AdamRice] No, the Manhattan Project (sorry).
[JeremyGray] A part of me agrees with Tim in that <atom> would be cute, but the rest of me agrees with Tomas, the wise man, et al. Naming elements as they relate metaphorically to "atom" would be fun, and I'm sure us techies could keep it straight, but the potential for confusion amongst the ViewSourceClan and the general public (i.e. the people we need to market to) is great indeed, and it would be best to keep element names clear of metaphors.
As for phrases for feeds, entries, and taglines, I think it would be best if one and only one were recommended for each, creating a set of marketing standards, as it were, for Atom. An Atom Feed. An Atom Entry. Atom-powered.