Re: Last look at W3C

[Joe Gregorio <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jason Shellen wrote:
> On a sad note, I have recently heard from a few companies who would
> like to implement Atom but will only support this if it becomes a W3C
> standard not an IETF spec.  While I feel this is shortsighted, this is
> a reality and something to consider.

"On a sad note I heard from a few companies who would
like to implement Atom but will only support this if it becomes a W3C
standard not an IETF spec. Now, they had to call me
by phone since they don't use email (RFC 821). And I would
love to point to their web site but they don't have one
because that would require DNS (RFC1034, RFC1035).
They considered using raw IP addresses but that wouldn't
help with the web pages since they can't
use HTTP (RFC 2616, RFC 2617)."

Shall I go on?

I'm calling this for what it's worth. FUD. If these
companies really exist and are that
concerned with a move to the IETF then they should join
the list and voice their concerns directly, not
anonymously by proxy.

> Finally, I appreciate the call for consensus last week

There was no call for concensus *last week*, the time for
discussion for alternatives to start was *back in February*.

http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2004/02/23/Draft-Atom-IETF-charter

	-joe

--
http://BitWorking.org
http://WellFormedWeb.org