Compatability with the W3C was the main focal point of the first half of the meeting. Tim Bray suggesting that inertia is a key ingredient of the standards organisation decision. In Tim's words:
We've invested a lot of work in the IETF option, so the W3C would have to win by a more than 5% margin to make it attractive to me.
Matt May, one of the W3C representatives attending the meeting has made an excellent effort to prove there is more than a 5% benefit to doing Atom within the W3C.
What is evident in Matt's posting is that there is a passion about Atom inside the W3C. This passion is centered around the technical benefits offered by the Atom package. It is interesting to note that the W3C people who've come together to make this approach to the Atom community are from separate Working Groups. Each of them have independantly seen a benefit of working with Atom.
Their commitment to Atom if we decide not to go to the W3C is the same level of commitment most of the current Atom community offers - we all have full-time jobs mostly unrelated to Atom, and we do Atom stuff in our spare time. Its that ad-hoc committment that keeps the specification vendor-neutral (alongside Sam and Tim's excellent company-independant approach to guiding Atom along its path).
The extra special bit going to the W3C offers is bringing onboard some seriously professional experience in a day-job capacity. That, in my opinion, is how serious they are taking Atom - its worth allocating people in a full-time role to bring it to fruition.
Looking at the experience of the people representing the W3C in this discussion, they are amongst the cream of the technical staff. Matt May has seriously impressed me technically within his remit on the Web Accessibility Initiative. Dan Brickley strikes me as very tecchie, so to does Eric Miller. Karl Dubost I've known over the last year as a die-hard web standards evangelist, and he's another person who has seriously impressed me with the quality and assuredness of his work.
Of course, it would be absolutely ideal to have people like Mark Pilgrim, Joe Gregorio, Mark Nottingham, Ken MacLeod working on this as part of their day jobs, I doubt this is going to be remotely feasible.
Having some technical people in the W3C interested in Atom - interested enough to convince their management, even Tim Berners Lee - offering to help out as part of their day jobs - that's a bonus I've not seen from the IETF.
The one big downer for me is what I see as the fundamental incompatibility of the organisation of Atom and the W3C.
The Atom community is an open developer and user community. Its an ad-hoc community, with people dropping by to add their value, perhaps disappearing for a few months, then reappearing. These people still add a lot of value to the Atom process. What matters in this community is what people do. Working code, drafting a specification, demonstrating workable alternatives, taking the initiative on certain issues - that's the attributes that make the Atom community work.
The W3C is organised around member companies, invited experts and interest groups. It seems to be a strict identification of roles people play. Trying to map people from the Atom community to a proposed W3C structure creates a situation where the number of Invited Experts will probably about four times the number of the other Working Group members.
But with a defined role of Invited Experts comes the obligations outlined by the W3C - their member of good standing describes these obligations. Its a heavy price to pay compared to the free-flowing nature of the current Atom community.
The ideal is for the W3C to allow the Atom structure to remain as is - a tiny group of "full-time" members, a massive group of contributors who discuss, specify, code, test, analyse, correct, improve the specifications. This massive group evolves, grows, shrinks based on time availability and interest of its members. It is a hands-off approach, rather than a top-heavy, but it is clearly working.
The incompatibility of communities reveals itself in the weird situation that within the W3C, Sam Ruby and Mark Pilgrim consistute one voice instead of two (in a voting situation). That's a heavy sacrifice to make, its not a price I would willingly pay.
Ideally, if I could have my own way, I'd be an Invited Expert with the express proviso that any time a voting situation arises, I would delegate that vote (and other privileges) to Mark Pilgrim. But just having to do that is fighting against a structure that doesn't work for us.
On a real world note, I can't meet the minimum requirements of an Invited Expert, nor would I qualify as one. But I hope the hypothetical scenario demonstrates the necessity of getting around the member company problem.
The W3C representatives have mentioned a few times that the structure of Working Groups can be flexed and changed. I would like to see the W3C guys propose a structure that is more amenable to how the current Atom community operates. That is a discussion I feel needs to be done before we make a decision about the W3C.
Mark Nottingham raised the issue of the RDF and WSDL groups wanting to bring their standards into Atom. The W3C representatives have clearly committed to Atom regardless of whether RDF is chosen or not.
However, I do expect the discussion to take place again. Even though we've previously decided not to go the RDF route, and most of the RDF experts are still on board accepting that decision. We will need to have that discussion, this time with the RDF experts. It would be naive of us to expect otherwise.
I do feel like working with the W3C does offer us benefits. I stated on IRC I prefer the working code and rough consensus approach of IETF - I prefer to talk with working code since specification discussions are too abstract for me to follow comfortably. But the visibility and resources of the W3C are very tempting for an emerging standard.
There is a heavy price to be paid for working within the W3C. This is particularly in mapping the current Atom community to the W3C roles and groups. There's not a one-to-one match. And the second problem is treating Sam Ruby and Mark Pilgrim as one entity instead of two committed and productive developers. Ironing those two issues out will certainly guarantee a Yes to the W3C from me.
Nothing to do with Dave Winer
W3C sees Atom as an important Web application and one that supports the W3C mission to lead the Web to its full potential. The Atom group has done wonderful work achieving a consensus in the community by defining requirements and initiating the standardization process.
There is praise from the W3C over the Atom process so far. They are impressed with the number of implementations, and more importantly an established testing effort. Also worthy of praise was the intention to make Atom a standardised specification.
If Blogger's adoption of Atom wasn't a big enough sign of the community support of Atom, a vote of confidence from the W3C leaves no doubt as to Atom's worth.
The W3C have outlined issues / requirements they think is important: XML-Accessibility, Internationalisation, Device Independance, XHTML cooperation. Their position on RDF is that they are agnostic to whether Atom is XML or RDF.
The one interesting synergy or potential conflict I see is W3C's Annotation Project Annotea. The plus point is that Annotea's API is REST-based, and the W3C host the SOAP specification - this in a way confirms that the W3C can be agnostic. Annotea, however, uses RDF - well, it is a demonstration application of Semantic Web Development.
Annotea is used to create page-independant annotations of web pages. It also allows these annotations to be shared across Annotea users. Quite a large number of blogs are focused on commenting on other peoples pages / blogs, so there is an area of contention. The Annotea API is similar to Ken McLeod's Particle Wave idea.
I'm excited about the W3C's reply, although I don't have the experience or knowledge to decide either way whether the W3C's proposal is good for Atom or not. The actual people behind the proposal are all actively involved in the Semantic Web activity. This does raise the concern of re-doing the discussion over RDF all over again.
Of course, I don't mind which standards organisation the Atom group decides to go with - they have my support either way. My heart says working with the W3 would be cool, but my head says a good adoptable standard needs a lot more than cool to be successful. I await with interest what other Atom participants think.
My initial concern is the membership is largely members or invite only - which may stifle a few people. I'm not really a syntax developer, I'd rather take a specification and code stuff using it, try out things in code. I'd obviously like to continue participating in that manner in the current ad-hoc basis I've done so far. I probably don't need to be invited - as long as I can follow along and participate in the mailing list when the reason neccessitates.
Eric Miller is the current W3 spokesman on this invitation, and his reassuring reply is:
I think we meant to say we're not going to take this out of the hands of the people who are working on it: Atom has matured thanks to the people who have so far contributed to it, and we want those people to continue to contribute to it in the standards process.
My next concern is the status of Mark Pilgrim and Sam Ruby. At the onset of this project Sam Ruby had a sign-off from his manager to steer the Atom process - and which he's done a magnificent job so far. Mark Pilgrim joined IBM a few months ago as an accessibility architect - his endeavours with Atom were unrelated to his new job with IBM. Both are key members of the Atom project - they both need to be able to work with others in this endeavour, preferably with equal voting rights. If the W3C Working group is the preferred process, something needs to be done to ensure that both can continue uninhibited. (I guess the ideal is for Mark Pilgrim to be a part of this project as an individual - independant of IBM). On the same note, a number of Google employees are working on Atom too - I'd want this to continue as a community effort, not a one company one member process.
Danny Ayers is quite positive about the proposal.
Atom deserves to be treated as a first-class citizen, up there alongside the "big" specs. The IETF is a good organization, but there is a danger of Atom becoming obscured alongside 10,001 other RFCs. I believe the W3C would provide more than enough visibility to guarantee widespread adoption.
Joe Gregorio is positive with some reservations:
While I think its great that the two organizations are both interested in Atom I do have my reservations about the W3C which mostly mirror that of Mark Nottingham. My biggest concerns that anybody be able to join and participate which isn't how the W3C currently operates, and that RDF not be foisted upon Atom.
Sam Ruby seems positively upbeat:
To me a very important intangible is a willingness to participate openly in venues like mailing lists, weblogs and wikis. To me, that is more important than the fact that the W3C has an office in Morocco. And on this account, on this particular proposed standard, and at this point in time, the advantage clearly goes to the W3C. Perhaps this is not your fathers W3C after all.
Tim Bray is not against the proposal:
Personally, I think we could get a good result in either organization and would not push back against the community if many voices were raised in favor of switching horses to the W3C. Looking at the pros and cons above, my leaning is towards the IETF.
both Sam and I have willingness to take it on and sign-off from our employers, wherever it is.
Asbjørn Ulsberg - reservations aside - supports the idea:
I have some doubts about this, but if I just put it aside, I have to agree with and repeat after Danny: "I wholeheartedly support Atom becoming a W3C-based specification".
Here are the answers to the FAQ: No, it doesn't have to be RDF. No, it won't have to take ten years to become a standard. No, you don't have to pony up $5,750 a year to become a Member to participate. Yes, it will be royalty-free. (All our new stuff is.) Yes, you can do everything in the public eye. No, some W3C Member company didn't put us up to this. Yes, we can make Atom feeds of our RSS feeds.
When Atom started, I promised myself, and indirectly Sam Ruby, that I wouldn't get involved in the mud-slinging around RSS2.0 and concentrate instead on Atom. Andrew Grumet is one of the few people involved in RSS2.0 I still have respect for, so he deserves a decent reply. This is a reply I made in his comments. I don't intent this sort of post to be a regular thing.
I hope the message will get through.
Crystal clear: anything developers and users want that doesn't comply to the Winer and friends gospel is going to be FUDded to death, regardless of merit. Any improvements to RSS which doesn't originate from Winer and friends will be derailled and attacked in a concerted campaign of "Stop Energy". Nothing could be more clear.
For each new syndication format that becomes popular, we lose an opportunity to get new features.
The opportunities lost was a major drive toward Atom. You are not losing opportunities - you've already lost them because of the shambles around RSS2.0.
Creating a new syndication format - Atom - wasn't the first thing tried - if anything it was a last resort. People have tried and failed to work within the RSS community -- it is unworkable due to the FUD and nonsense starting from scripting.com and working outwards. That prevents ideas from being worked on. RSS2.0 is the reason for the lost opportunities. Atom is an option to bringing back those opportunities.
So there was essentially no choice but to start a new syndication format without this baggage.
Why was MT-Blacklist, perhaps the best de-spamming tool around, built by a third party on donated time and not the vendor?
Why do you have a problem with independant - vendor neutral - developers producing solutions?
Each time they change the default, weblog software developers must scramble to add support for that format whether they like it or not
Is the RSS2.0 specification now not good enough to define what is or isn't a valid feed? Film at 11.
I don't get Six Apart. They've built a product that a lot of people like but seem to be doing everything in their power to kill the market in which that product thrives.
I don't get why people involved in Userland or Dave Winer seem hell bent on alienating a vast number of developers from the syndication space. Six Apart may have the power to kill the market they rely on, but Dave Winer and Co have done significant damage already (for instance, the loss of confidence in RSS as a result of his funky feeds spat - with no details.), yet that goes unmentioned. Interesting.
they [developers] could have spent that time developing something new and exciting instead.
Not within RSS2.0 - its history is littered with failed initiatives. If Winer doesn't like you or doesn't agree, nothing in RSS2.0 succeeds because of the negativity he generates.
Google did a similar, but more evil, thing by using their free Blogspot users to proliferate the Atom format.
So offering a syndication format on a free service that didn't previously offer it is declared evil? There's nothing wrong with proliferating an open format. Aggregators read Atom feeds already. Pity Radio couldn't be bothered to upgrade their aggregator to support Atom.
Blogspot users don't have the ability to add support for other formats
FUD. They never had that ability. Would you prefer Google not offer syndication for these free accounts - would that be not evil? Its utterly amazing that if a company choses not to use RSS2.0, they are branded as evil. Nothing but FUD.
If you want to insist you have a point, why does Radio have no ability to support Atom in its aggregator and feed generator? All the other mainstream aggregators and feed generators do.
Andrew, ask yourself honestly, what do you, Adam Curry, Dave Winer and John Robb have to gain by alienating the content syndication developer community in this way? This animosity you've (plural) crafted in the above post, how is that going to convince people working on Atom to give up and work on RSS2.0 instead? Looking at the number of failed initiatives in RSS2.0, its pretty clear that isn't going to happen.
Alienating people trying to innovate with fresh new ideas isn't a smart tactic. What are you gaining from doing so?
Its been emphasised over and over by you lot about how Atom is doomed to fail. So why not leave it be, stop this FUD and nonsense and let it fail. Surely if its failure is that obvious you don't need to do anything but sit back and watch?
These posts over the last few days from the four of you border on desparation and fear. Certainly not the position of someone convinced of the merits of RSS2.0.
If you like using weblog software and newsreaders, and want this market to survive, I encourage you to get informed, read the arguments, and support RSS.
Wow, no option there of making up your own mind after reading the arguments. Hardly the modicum of unbiasism.
When someone claims that Atom is a more open format, try to get them to explain how a copyright owned by the AtomEnabled Alliance is more open than creative commons share-alike license from Harvard.
FUD. Interesting that Atom is scheduled to be a proposed IETF - a recognised internet standards body - standard in August 2004. Something RSS should have done years ago (guess what stopped that from happening, or should I say whom?). Atom is and always will be a freely available open standard without any vendor dependance.
I see the biggest argument used against Atom is that Radio doesn't support it. Radio is a Userland product, this anti-Atom effort is centered around Userland, its ex-employees and personal friends. Coincidence - I think not.
When someone claims that Atom has a more democratic process, try to get them to describe the process by which decisions are made.
Wiki discussion, mailing list discussion, people taking the initiative to try out different ideas and opening it up for discussion. Broad consensus reached. It is meritocracy based - for example the excellent AtomAPI was initiated by Joe Gregorio, discussed, improved and implemented by others - including myself. Never seen that happen in RSS2.0.
Note that the main figure-heads of Atom have actually not had their way in a number of key decisions. Far more democratic than the RSS2.0 process.
Does every feature idea get a public vote, or are most of the decisions made by a select few.
Public discussion resulting in a broad consensus. Working code goes a lot further than antagonistic remarks.
If every feature gets a public vote, is that really the best way to design software?
Public discussion. More times that not a general feeling of concensus is enough for a decision to be adopted. Seems to be working quite nicely, thanks. If it wasn't a good method, Atom probably wouldn't be as successful as it currently is, and you wouldn't need to FUD as desperately against it.
who pays their salaries?
Who pays my salary has no relevance to Atom. You seem to be under this delusion that all Atom developers are being paid monetary compensation to do so. This is quite wrong. Who payed you to combine BitTorrent and RSS - same thing.
Knowing the identities of the employer companies and their intentions is critical
Who I work for is irrelevant to Atom.
because the companies, not the spec-writers, will own the intellectual property that comes out of the spec effort.
FUD. My employers do not have a claim on the work I invest into Atom.
When someone claims that the Atom has more to do with personalities than technology, take a close look at what each person has accomplished.
Yep, look at all the failed ventures in the RSS2.0 resulting from negative comments and FUD originating from scripting.com. Now look at Atom flourishing because Winer has no hold over it. Crystal clear.
Pay attention instead to the amount of new and useful technology, particularly techology created by other people, that came into being as a direct result of that person's efforts.
Define other people. Atom allows me to explore ideas that are impossible, too difficult or funky if done with RSS2.0.
Stop this FUD. You are so much better than this, Andrew.
Some of the services I have in mind would include an Atom front-end to a mailing list, to a news group, even to e-mail. Other directions would include managing the content of a non-blog website with Atom. In essence, I'm experimenting with Atom as a generic front-end to Create Update and Delete of a wide variety of communication streams.
Over the course of December, through the long hot days down in South Africa I wrote the bulk of this framework. Most of my initial ideas were done save one. I've let the application slip so far this year until a couple of days ago (motivation more than anything else).
The application wants to be released, so here it is: isoTope.
isoTope is a web-based application framework built around Atom and the AtomAPI. It is designed to be modular and extensible. It is released under the GNU General Public License. Its only at version 0.1 - the very first version, and the code is rough (although a lot better than my first PHP implementation of the AtomAPI.
At the moment the framework runs a very basic blogging application. Updates, comments and new posts can all be done through an AtomAPI client that supports Atom 0.3 and AtomAPI 0.9.
The application supports plain text, HTML, OPML and OML featured content entries. Browsers get HTML responses back from the application, and clients accepting the application/x.atom+xml mime-type will get raw Atom responses. (Or adding .atom to the end of URLs will return the Atom format, even in a browser):