search

w3c / websub

WebSub Spec in Social Web Working Group
https://w3c.github.io/websub/
285 stars 50 forks source link

bad name choice (and there is evidence) #10

Closed dret closed 7 years ago

dret commented 7 years ago

i think it's great that the name was changed form what started as a joke to something that can be pronounced and used. but i think this is another incidence of using "class names" as "instance names" that makes things unnecessarily confusing. PubSub is a well-established name for a class of protocols/mechanisms. hijacking this as a name for one specific one is confusing. after a long and painful experience with "XML Schema", where @w3c decided to call a "XML Schema" language "XML Schema", we have a solid body of evidence that this is a bad idea as a naming strategy. so if possible at all, i'd like to encourage the group to come up with a name that is less confusing to the community, and will make it easier for all of us working with protocols and teaching them to avoid terminology confusion if we can. thank you very much!

sandhawke commented 7 years ago

Noting more detail at http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2016/10/a-pubsub-called-pubsub.html with proposal PubHub.

I'm fairly neutral, tending toward positive, on this. We didn't spend a lot of time brainstorming new names, and we can still change it pretty easily.

To understand the argument better, though, why isn't HTML a counter-example? It's a hypertext markup language. Is it because people don't usually abbreviate hypertext markup language as "HTML"?

Also, why isn't enough to say "W3C PubSub" to disambiguate it?

dret commented 7 years ago

Noting more detail at http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2016/10/a-pubsub-called-pubsub.html with proposal PubHub.

i couldn't stop myself... ;-) the XSD pain still hurts...

I'm fairly neutral, tending toward positive, on this. We didn't spend a lot of time brainstorming new names, and we can still change it pretty easily.

very good then. i did notice that the name switch was just prior to FPWD publication, so i hope that renaming wouldn't be such a hassle.

To understand the argument better, though, why isn't HTML a counter-example? It's a hypertext markup language. Is it because people don't usually abbreviate hypertext markup language as "HTML"?

to my knowledge, HTML was never used as a name for a class of languages. and i never heard anybody referring to any language other than HTML as a HTML, even though if you really wanted to, maybe you could do that. but it would be confusing (hence my issue), so people probably simply don't do it.

Also, why isn't enough to say "W3C PubSub" to disambiguate it?

could be. XSD tried the same by first branding itself as "W3C XML Schema". it was too complicated and never caught on. it still makes references brittle if people fail to say "W3C", and to me also feels a bit like trying to force people to say "W3C" every time they want to talk about the protocol.

tonyg commented 7 years ago

"Web Multicast"?

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

Just to get the cross-links in this thread, there is an existing issue about the name change where we tossed around a few ideas and settled on PubSub: #5.

I appreciate the well-written thoughts here, and I have to say I agree with them for the most part. "PubHub" isn't terrible, but I'd also like to hear @julien51 chime in on that since I'm not sure it qualifies as "easily pronounceable" for non-native English speakers.

dret commented 7 years ago

I'm not sure it qualifies as "easily pronounceable" for non-native English speakers.

are you specifically referring to french speakers here? ;-) pub-ub?

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

I don't think the "b-h" combination is easily pronounceable in any language purely from a phonetic perspective. I'm just saying if that was the part of "PubSubHubbub" that was tripping people up then "PubHub" doesn't change that.

dret commented 7 years ago

I don't think the "b-h" combination is easily pronounceable in any language purely from a phonetic perspective. I'm just saying if that was the part of "PubSubHubbub" that was tripping people up then "PubHub" doesn't change that.

i am not married to "PubHub" at all. i just wanted to suggest something, and actually kind of liked that idea. but i am fine with anything as long as it is not "PubSub" or "Protocol".

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

I'm not totally against "PubHub", I just realize I'm biased by being a native English speaker.

Phonetically, "HubPub" is easier to say since the "b-p" end up merging together.

dret commented 7 years ago

I'm not sure it qualifies as "easily pronounceable" for non-native English speakers.

are you specifically referring to french speakers here? ;-) pub-ub?

dret commented 7 years ago

Noting more detail at http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2016/10/a-pubsub-called-pubsub.html with proposal PubHub.

i couldn't stop myself... ;-) the XSD pain still hurts...

I'm fairly neutral, tending toward positive, on this. We didn't spend a lot of time brainstorming new names, and we can still change it pretty easily.

very good then. i did notice that the name switch was just prior to FPWD publication, so i hope that renaming wouldn't be such a hassle.

To understand the argument better, though, why isn't HTML a counter-example? It's a hypertext markup language. Is it because people don't usually abbreviate hypertext markup language as "HTML"?

to my knowledge, HTML was never used as a name for a class of languages. and i never heard anybody referring to any language other than HTML as a HTML, even though if you really wanted to, maybe you could do that. but it would be confusing (hence my issue), so people probably simply don't do it.

Also, why isn't enough to say "W3C PubSub" to disambiguate it?

could be. XSD tried the same by first branding itself as "W3C XML Schema". it was too complicated and never caught on. it still makes references brittle if people fail to say "W3C", and to me also feels a bit like trying to force people to say "W3C" every time they want to talk about the protocol.

julien51 commented 7 years ago

Hey! Thanks for the feedback. I think PubHub could work. It's not as easy to pronounce as PubSub because H is "silent", but it's not nearly as bad as PubSubHubbub. So I'll let the majority decide but I am also in favor in making sure we do not have this conversation too many times because it will get confusing for a lot of people eventually!

voxpelli commented 7 years ago

I think PubHub works as well, from swedish perspective and everything. Would prefer it over PubSub and I think it's a definitive improvement over PubSubHubbub while still being more recognizable as stemming from that name than PubSub would.

pfefferle commented 7 years ago

It is also working in german, but I don't think it is a better choice. It sounds very similar to PubSub and the difference is only one char, so it might also be problematic in texts.

tonyg commented 7 years ago

My favourite is actually still PubSub. I find myself talking about "W3 PubSub" and "W3C PubSub" which gets the point across really well and isn't very verbose, while also having a nice authoritative sound to it :-)

sandhawke commented 7 years ago

Another problem with "PubSub": search. Try google, github, npmjs, etc. PubSub right now gets you a huge mess of stuff, while pubsubhubbub gets you just the right stuff.

dret commented 7 years ago

very good point, @sandhawke, another reason why using a proper name (and not claiming an established concept name) may be a good idea.

tonyg commented 7 years ago

Small anecdatum: I get lots of excellent results googling for either 'W3 PubSub' or 'W3C PubSub' (without quotes).

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

I just updated the documentation of my hub to refer to "PubSub" instead of "PubSubHubbub". I have to agree, it's pretty confusing since PubSub is a generic term: https://switchboard.p3k.io/

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

More discussion happening in #social

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

My current favorite alternative: HubCast

The "hub" is core to the idea of the spec, since the hub coordinates publishers and subscribers. "cast" is from the idea that the spec is used to broadcast a feed to many subscribers.

dret commented 7 years ago

On 2016-11-01 17:20, Aaron Parecki wrote:

My current favorite alternative: HubCast The "hub" is core to the idea of the spec, since the hub coordinates publishers and subscribers. "cast" is from the idea that the spec is used to broadcast a feed to many subscribers.

sounds good to me. i have very little preference for the actual name being chosen, so HubCast would be perfect and close this issue.

sandhawke commented 7 years ago

Please move discussion to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/push-name

julien51 commented 7 years ago

As of today at the F2F meeting we have agreed on this:

We reject all pre-exisitng names before today, and we will pick from between WebSub, WebSubscribe, and WebFollow barring any new better names.

aaronpk commented 7 years ago

See #62 for the PR that renames the spec, and the motivation for the conclusion.

dret commented 7 years ago

thanks! good pick: unique name and no clash with established concepts.

On Nov 19, 2016, at 07:17, Aaron Parecki notifications@github.com wrote:

See #62 for the PR that renames the spec, and the motivation for the conclusion.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

sandhawke commented 7 years ago

For amusement value / comic relief, after this was settled, during a break, some group members brainstormed a list of other possible names: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfCzLKbH8iVT1MviEU_5Mcgh-OdBtllp5bKZUcgOfuA/edit

julien51 commented 7 years ago

my heart jump for a second here @sandhawke !

sandhawke commented 7 years ago

Oh, seeing activity with this issue title? Yeah, sorry!