More on Lonhorn naming

I am still following the Longhorn naming thread at John's blog, which is still growing. I have just posted this comment:

I am only beginning to realize how difficult it will be to find good descriptive names for the new technology that won't clash with current naming schemes inside and outside Microsoft.

Regarding Avalon, Indigo and WinFS, maybe we can just keep the code names in the pre-Longhorn context. For instance we can keep calling Avalon the new presentation technology in Longhorn and expect everybody to use "presentation subsystem" (as appears in the Longhorn SDK now) or "System.Windows namespace" or just “System.Windows API” by 2010. We could also keep using Indigo in pre-Longhorn context and expect everybody to use “MessageBus subsystem "Microsoft.MessageBus" from there on. Also the same for using WinFs now and and “System.Storage” in the future.

My point is that those cool new technologies are supposed to blend together with the current .NET framework in WinFX or whatever the name of then new .NET based Windows API is. After that I see no good reason for call them anything special besides they actual identification inside the whole WinFX API. Actually I think the “Microsoft namespace” is getting too much populated. Developers coding against WinFX will need very good cartography.

XAML is something different as it is an ML. Maybe it won’t be so exclusively tied to GUI design as we think today. In my opinion, the name XAML is as good as OGIML (Object graph initialization ML) or OWML (Object Wiring ML) or perhaps X# :-)