"Eclipse Project for..." is not intended to be a standard. We chose that, basically, as a work around to reduce some of the friction of bringing these projects over to the Eclipse Foundation.
By way of background, we need our project names to avoid infringing on trademarks held by others. There's a little grey area regarding which spec names are trademarked and and which aren't, we didn't have the name "Jakarta" sorted out at the time, and we didn't want to spend a week coming up with a bunch of new names, so we came up with this work around. At least in part, we went with this because I got tired of arguing about it, and "Eclipse Project for..." was the least bad option.
IMHO, "Eclipse Project for..." is meaningless and there is value in keeping "Eclipse" out of the names of the specifications. "Jakarta" is a brand supported by the Eclipse Foundation and so it can be used in project names. By way of background (again), we require that formal project names include our brand (e.g. "Eclipse Kura"); as a brand of the Eclipse Foundation, "Jakarta EE Batch" is (general trademark issues notwithstanding) a completely reasonable project name.
Our most recent project is named "Jakarta EE NoSQL". This feels like a better standard pattern to me. In fact, I'd love to see us rename some of the existing projects as we turn them into proper "specification projects". We might consider, for example, renaming "Eclipse Project for JAX-WS" to something like "Jakarta EE XML Web Services" (we might want to try and tighten that one up: "Jakarta XML Web Services"?). Note that I haven't fully vetted this from a trademark management point of view. Let's maybe save that larger conversation until the new year.
HTH,
Wayne
Wayne