[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: W3C Invitation
On May 14, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
My perception has been that Tim and Sam have gone to extraordinary
lengths to assure an open process here; they took pains to inform the
Atom Community of their intent re: the IETF beforehand, and gave
timely and complete updates on the progress that was made.
So, I'd like to push this point a bit further, because I'm getting
conflicting messages, and it's important to keep the air clear. To my
knowledge, there has been no contact with the W3C about standardising
Atom before Eric's message to the IESG; is this in fact true?
I approached Sam at SXSW in March about the idea of standardizing Atom
at W3C. I'd classify it as "conjecture" rather than "discussion" or
anything connoting concreteness, so it's logical that he wouldn't bring
it to the community. (Others of us have similarly chatted with Atom
community people in recent months. Since we tend to see Sam and Tim
most often, I think all or most of our discussion has been with them.)
Sam had asked a couple of us to propose something to atom-syntax. But
we individuals couldn't make any proposals on behalf of the W3C Team
without ensuring that we actually represent the W3C Team.
In the last couple weeks, several of us who have had these chats got
together with members of our senior management to figure out why it
makes sense to each of us to suggest building Atom at W3C, what an Atom
WG would need, and what we can offer. From that, we put together our
response to the IESG. (We informed them of our intent well beforehand.)
I understand that it's a bit of a shock to everybody else, and for
that, I apologize. But we didn't want to make a proposal until we could
back it up. Hope this clears things up.
On May 14, 2004, at 1:51 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
I'm getting the impression that there has been coordination between
some Atom people and W3C that was not obvious to outsiders such as
myself, and this would presumably alleviate a number of my concerns.
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/