RE: Atom-format belongs in W3C. Atom-API belongs in IETF...

["Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@xxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

I appreciate your reasons.  I would personally like to see the Atom
API happen at the W3C precisely because it offers an opportunity to
bring the web back to its essentials.  So, I am humming for the W3C
as well.

-bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: 'Atom-Syntax'
Sent: 6/6/2004 6:18 PM
Subject: Atom-format belongs in W3C. Atom-API belongs in IETF...


	I realize that I'm in the minority (I was the only one to hum
for
W3C at the meeting at Sun.) but I would just like to say that I think
the
Atom format belongs in the W3C.
	Basically, my reasoning goes like this: The W3C, for better or
for
worse, has been the primary forum for defining the web as we know it.
Atom,
I believe, is an integral component of the web that will be -- what the
web
is becoming. In order to maintain continuity, we should pursue Atom in
the
"home of the web."
	I believe that in the future we'll see that almost every web
site
will syndicate its content, or summaries of its content, via Atom files.
In
the future, we should expect that *every* content management system will
become Atom-aware and that Atom will become as ubiquitous as HTML. Atom
will
be used by much more than just the blogging community and will be the
key
component in finally creating the web that Tim Berners-Lee once said was
his
goal -- a web in which it is just as easy to create content as it is to
read
it. Atom will also become important to the RDF/Semantic Web world as the
primary "packaging" format for passing around chunks of RDF.
	The IETF's strengths are in protocols while the W3C has focused
primarily on formats. Given this, I see the IETF as the logical place to
pursue the Atom API (hopefully based on WebDAV) while the W3C seems to
me
the most logical place to pursue defining the Atom format. W3C is also
the
logical place to deal with a number of other formatting issues which are
important to bloggers. For instance, we really need a decent standard
for
OPML files... And the IETF is the logical place to handle protocol
issues
such as pinging, trackback, and syndication via push protocols (such as
XMPP, SIMPLE, BEEP, etc.) (Note:  I believe that in the future, we'll
see
every web site and CMS, not just blogs, sending out pings to search
engines,
matching engines, and ping aggregators.)
	At the California Atom community meeting, I asked: "Can we have
both?" I wasn't surprised to hear a resounding "No!" as the answer.
Unfortunately, I still think that "both" is the right answer. We should
deal
with format issues at W3C and protocol issues at IETF...

	I know that I surprise at least a few folk by supporting the W3C
in
this matter -- since I've said many, many things which are critical of
the
W3C process. Hopefully, folk can understand that my supporting W3C in
this
matter takes nothing away from my concerns with their process. (My
primary
concern is with votes and participation rights that are paid for with
membership dues or granted by invitation -- not earned via participation
itself.) Nonetheless, I think that the W3C has served us well in the
past
and we should at least give them the chance to continue to serve us in
the
future. They have repeatedly said that they would do their best to
ensure a
process that will satisfy the community. While some may doubt that they
can
do so, let's give them a chance. If worse comes to worst, we can always
back
out and restart in the IETF.

		bob wyman