Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

What Ted said.  I'd go all the way to "atproto" because
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP

The one really good argument I can see for sticking with "at" would be: Are
users of systems based on ATProto going to be seeing, thinking about, and
copy/pasting lots of these URIs? If so, there’s a case for brevity and wit.

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 2:54 AM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree with Eliot here.  The registry is first-come-first-served because
> we want to avoid collisions; having a single namespace for this is pretty
> much a requirement for the overall system to function properly.   But, as
> you can tell, there is a period after a string is minted internally and
> starts turning up in code before it shows up at the registry (or even on
> this list).  Very short strings and strings with mnemonic significance
> (like the wordplay that led you to "at") are at increased risk for
> collision.
>
> Your repo refers to this consistently as atproto, and atproto or even atp
> is less like likely to create a later collision; my advice (and it is just
> advice) is to consider using one of those.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:18 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bryan,
>>
>> As Alex mentioned, I wasn't referring to URI schemes, but rather that the
>> word "at" is not descript, reused in many different contexts, from Austria
>> to a preposition, to a scheduling command in UNIX to various other acronym
>> expansions.  My understanding is that the registry is FCFS, and so this is
>> *advice*.  Whatever you choose you'll be stuck with.  If you even added
>> an extra character or two that could make more clear what this is, you may
>> find it helpful later on.
>>
>> Eliot
>> On 08.05.23 00:14, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Eliot,
>>
>> We did do both some general search, and checked against the URI schema
>> registry when starting work on the protocol, and are not aware of any
>> problematic existing use or conflicts the the use of the URI scheme name.
>>
>> The closest confusion we are aware of with 'at' is the Hayes AT command
>> originally used with modems. We are unaware of any URI scheme specifically
>> for the Hayes AT command set, and while that command set is still in broad
>> use, it does not seem likely to start using one now.
>>
>> "at" matches our protocol name ("AT" stands for "Authenticated
>> Transfer"). There is a bit of wordplay going on with "@" (the "at symbol"),
>> which is used as a prefix convention in social media to indicate a user
>> handle. AT Protocol is primarily used for social media applications (at
>> least, that is the focus at present).
>>
>> As precedent, there are several other two-character URI schemes in the
>> current registry.
>>
>> URIs starting with "at://" are already being used by several
>> implementations of the AT Protocol. At this point it seems like a change
>> would only add to confusion.
>>
>> --bryan
>>
>> On Sun, 7 May 2023, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> As another casual observer, can I suggest that you use a slightly more
>> descriptive scheme name?  "at" is heavily overloaded, and a name that
>> provides at least a guess what this is will serve the user better.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>