Time for a name change?
- Hi all,
Seeing as the version number arms race is looking unlikey to stop, what's the
consensus on name changes?
Is it time recognize that syndicated XML is a lot more popular than the efforts
of just one vendor? Is there sufficient momentum to just picking up and moving
to a new name?
In the past it may have been necessary continue the campaign. Have we reached
the point that it's better to just move on?
The reality is that whatever we call this format any tools out there are famliar
with the current effort will continue to work. We can collectively weather the
storm a name change would cause. The developers have come forth recognizing the
value of a community driven effort. We'd be striking off in a new direction,
but with followers.
Yes, it's indeed handing it to Winer. But he appears to be so hell-bent on a
pyrrhic victory that it's become pointless to continue. He appears so
maniacally bent on maintaining his co-opting of Netscape's work that it'd
probably better to just give it to him while taking all the developers to the
So how do we move forward on raising a vote to entertain the idea of a name
change? That's without actually announcing such a change, of course. We'd have
a lot of issues to consider before making any sort of annoucements. Purls,
domain names, etc.
Is there interest in a poll to gauge the value behind considering a name change?
> RSS did fork. What is the major difference namespaces and RDF.Whoa there, what pseudo-2.0 understands about namespaces and what's correct
> Namespaces is no longer an issue. While it wasn't the name, it is a
about using them are two entirely different matters. And it's not our job to
educate the 2.0 developers on fixing that.
> I'm only suggesting that the name reflect its purpose rather then itsSure but we'll need to get consensus on what it does before we pick a name. I'm
> technical inerts. I'm opposed to XML being in the name also just less
> so. I'm not out to attack RDF nor am I suggesting it has to go. (This
> goes to me comments earlier also.)
quite strongly inclined to recognize it's about pushing topical ephemera about.
Stuff that looks sot of like news. Can it be used for other stuff? Sure! But
for anyone still clinging to 'site summaries' sadly there are very few feeds
> This is a fair definition for today's common usage, but somewhatWell, we're now three years into RSS and the staggering majority of feeds are
> limiting for future potential uses that have been discussed here in
> the past. I can think of applications where the information is not
> updated "frequently" (a vague term) or where "alerting" is not its
all about news-like items. Stuff like alerting and what-not are perfectly
suited for use as modules. (I have done a lot of thinking here). As for past
hopes of other uses, there's really very little data to support that any
significant effort/progress has been made on those fronts. Tons of potential