Dare Obasanjo:

I actually haven't found a production implementation of APP ...

Uhm, yeah, I've been meaning to mention that; there are no production implementations of the APP. As a matter of fact, there are no implementations of the APP at all. Period. That's because the spec isn't finalized, and part of that finalization process will be the assignment of a URI for the "app:" namespace, which implies that every single implementation today has the wrong namespace for Service and Category documents.

http://www.w3.org/2007/app
Interesting. On another note, any chance you could (lead the way to get others to) start calling it "AtomPP" instead of "APP?" That's the term some (enlightened?) people are using on [rest-discuss]. If the problem with the term "APP" isn't obvious it's because it's too easily confused with the short form on the word "APPlication."

Posted by Mike Schinkel on 2007-06-12

Mike,

For convenience, this protocol can be referred to as the "Atom Protocol" or "APP".

Posted by joe on 2007-06-13

No one’s gonna type “Atom Protocol” every time, but “APP” isn’t googlable. I’ll keep saying “AtomPP”, whether or not there’s spec language to back up that usage.

Posted by Aristotle Pagaltzis on 2007-06-13

@Joe: Thanks for the response, but the spec was short-sighted and Aristotle is right. Probably the best reason to use AtomPP is uniqueness for googling as Aristotle points out...

Posted by Mike Schinkel on 2007-06-14

Why didn't you guys get the new-style W3C namespace: http://www.w3.org/ns/app?

Posted by Anne van Kesteren on 2007-06-16

Anne,

I have no idea. Just like the Atom Syndication Format namespace URI, it just appeared, I'm not aware of who, when, where, why or how it came into existence.

Posted by joe on 2007-06-16