[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/