Atom Name Usage

Alternate word forms

[ClosedPoll] Should we


[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.

[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.

[DannyAyers] Which definition fits better : [WWW]entry (an item inserted or included) or [WWW]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?

[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.