[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rss-public] Autodiscovery IPR and Process Concerns
On 11/30/06, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The point to all this is that you shouldn't place too much weight on the
status of the specification as a whole. You need to consider the
stability and maturity level of each section individually. Thus, while
proceeding with Autodiscovery as an RFC may yield a fully complete and
endorsed specification more quickly than HTML5
Actually, the process you describe is pretty much identical to the
IETF process in letter. For example, it took many years for RFC3986 to
appear, describing URIs at the level of Full Standard.
In practice, the WHAT-WG is more accountable, because there is a
documented process for resolving disputes that actually empowers the
group's participants. You'll find no such thing in the IETF,
especially with an individual draft. The WHAT-WG is also much more
rigorous in testing and research than the IETF, so I have to agree
that there is little benefit to pursuing the Internet-Draft. Claims
that the WHAT-WG is too slow are overblown at best -- getting
something to "Proposed Standard" is not that interesting.
The (active!) wiki at http://feedautodiscovery.org is rapidly
eclipsing any other source on autodiscovery, and it can include
information that would not be permitted in an IETF or WHAT-WG
document, so it will always be more valuable and current.