Re: W3C response to proposed Atom Publishing Format and Protocol (atompub) working group

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/13/04 11:41 AM, "Eric Miller" <em@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> - Open participation and consensus
> 
>  An Atom Working Group in the W3C could charter itself to operate in
> the public, and invite participants who are not from W3C Member
> organizations at the chair's prerogative. We recognize that much of
> the work done on Atom has been by non-Members, and want to assure
> those participants that they may take part fully in a W3C Atom
> Working Group.
> 

I work full-time in a job relatively unrelated to Atom, as do many other
members of the Atom community who have contributed far more than myself.
Full participation in a W3C Working Group appears to require patronage of
some kind. What is the substance of this assurance?

> Generally, each participant identified as an individual entity or
> company has a single vote. Decisions are made by consensus and will
> give the possibility to respect the process that the Atom group has
> been able to achieve. Participation in this regard is open to both
> W3C Members and Invited Experts from the community.
> 

Could you clarify the phrase "will give the possibility to respect the
process"?

> - XHTML Cooperation
> 
> We believe the cooperation benefits to be great, and the coordination
> cost will be addressed more quickly if this work happens at W3C.
>
 
> - XML and RDF experience
> 
> ...Atom would benefit from direct liaisons with these and
> other W3C Working Groups to resolve potential conflicts and influence
> future specifications.
> 

As an individual, I cannot assess the validity of these claims. I have
practically no access to specifications currently under development at the
W3C. Furthermore, it's not clear how "potential conflicts" would be resolved
between an open project like Atom and the closed dealings of other WGs.
Would WGs wishing to coordinate with Atom be willing to operate in public as
well?


> While we recognize the IETF submission, we'd like to hear from others
> within the Atom community regarding the above points, and more
> specifically, their requirements and objectives regarding taking this
> to a standards organization. We'd support proposing a W3C Working
> Group in this area, provided there is support from the larger Atom
> community regarding the points mentioned above and that agreement
> about work areas can be reached with the IETF.
> 

Would the W3C be able to commit to a schedule similar to the current one[1]?
There was no requirement that the W3C wait until the last minute to make
this offer, so expediency is already a concern for me.

Although all of my comments have been critical, I don't think that switching
to the W3C would harm Atom, provided its progress is not gated by less
widely implemented projects.

Robert Sayre

1.) http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/IetfCharter