[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: W3C Invitation
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 have been aware of the W3C's interest.
Last October, I talked at length with Dan Brickley about related topics
(mostly RDF, but perhaps some W3C) at FooCamp. I asked him to make a
proposal on the wiki and/or the atom-syntax mailing list.
In February at SXSW, Matt May approached me, and I asked him to make a
proposal on the atom-syntax mailing list.
In April, at a social software meeting that Joi Ito convened, I asked
Dan Brickley and Karl Dubost to make a proposal on the atom-syntax
mailing list.
On May 10th, in response to an email from Eric Miller, I asked him to
make a proposal on the atom-syntax mailing list. (I am nothing if not
persistant). This was the first time the interest seemed more than
simply casual or passing.
On May 12th, the W3C posted Eric's response to the IESG. And copied the
atom-syntax mailing list.
In EACH case, it was the W3C representative which brought the issue to me.
In ANY case, the default assumption since June of 2003 [1] has been the
IETF, something two days of publically expressed interest doesn't
change. This morning I alluded to [2] what would help me form my
opinion: publically shaping the charter and contributing directly to the
wiki or standard.
Meanwhile, I am very intrigued by Don Park's suggestion [3].
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/06/23/SamsPie
[2] http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2004/05/14/Atom-at-W3C
[3] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg03746.html