You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 12, 2026. It is now read-only.
I love DASL and the succinct CBOR flavor described by DRISL. And I love the name and branding of DASL.
But having looked at and said it out loud a lot, I don't love the word "DRISL". And recently when updating the atproto specs to reference DASL, I was doing a lot of world jumbling around "DRISL, the part of DASL that has to do with CBOR".
This was in contrast to DAG-CBOR, which nicely includes the term "CBOR", while clarifying that a specific flavor is being invoked, all in a single word/term.
As a humble proposal (knowing this might be disruptive at this point), what if we call DRISL "DASL-CBOR"?
I love DASL and the succinct CBOR flavor described by DRISL. And I love the name and branding of DASL.
But having looked at and said it out loud a lot, I don't love the word "DRISL". And recently when updating the atproto specs to reference DASL, I was doing a lot of world jumbling around "DRISL, the part of DASL that has to do with CBOR".
This was in contrast to DAG-CBOR, which nicely includes the term "CBOR", while clarifying that a specific flavor is being invoked, all in a single word/term.
As a humble proposal (knowing this might be disruptive at this point), what if we call DRISL "DASL-CBOR"?