Maybe HyperApp should trademark hyper, oh wait they weren't before hypertext/protocol and HN doesn't like copyright :)
I guess we would look at who was "first", but do you know who was?
Or is it a weight of first and most popular? How is "popular" determined?
Oh dang, this is getting tricky isn't it?
And of course they're free to name their stuff after anything else they like, it's not a tricky question, it's just... weird? stupid? seo-manipulative? I don't know honestly, all I know is they had a more descriptive name at their disposal that had zero hits and they they passed on it.
How many uses of a prefix can the industry have before it meets your requirement of having to move on?
1, 2, 3, 5?
IMO people can name things whatever they want and can legally and people will remember whatever they need to.
I already said, they had a perfectly descriptive name but they chose the one easily confusable with 5 other things, I am curious to know their thought process. And what's yours?
> Hypercore also includes a new URL scheme, hyper://, for referencing any Hypercore-based data structure. As Hypercores declare their data structure, this URL scheme can be used for a wide variety of use-cases. This URL scheme can improve interoperability among applications by providing flexible and modular access to hypercore directly.
All of their technology is based off of their hyper protocol.
But my point is that I don't really see the need to nazi people's nomenclature.
You could just, ya'know, discuss the tech itself...
And that for some reason determines naming every product that uses that protocol.
> nazi
There's no need to be a nazi, but it should be an acceptable thing to ask, when identifier namespace is global, about why someone would choose to occupy an overlapping identifier even if a better more descriptive identifier is available, shouldn't it?