see also: WhatIsRssFor
There seems to be a lot of opinions about what Atom's purpose is. In order for the syntax to be effectively defined, this purpose needs to be clearly established and stated on the main page.
[SeairthJacobs] Realizing that there are actually more uses mentioned than just the two, I figured it would be good to get a thorough list of those mentioned so far. I suspect the voting format will need to change slightly as well.
Feed : Use for computer-friendly syndication (similar to RSS in functionality)
Editing : Use between atom-enabled clients and servers to create and update entries, comments, and either annotate or edit other resources
Archiving : Use for internal storage, import, and export of entries, comments, and other resources
Commenting : Use to post comments to an entry
Cross-linking : Use to notify one entry about another entry (usually external, similar to TrackBack)
[DeveloperDude] This vote closes on TBD.
Atom should only be a feed format
Atom should only be an editing format
Atom should primarily be a feed format, secondarily be an editing format
Atom should primarily be an editing format, secondarily a feed format
Atom should be equally a feed and editing format
[JamesAylett] Certainly, the RoadMap is clear on wanting to be a feed format, and then to build other services (eg: archiving, editing) using that format. I'm more interested that the RoadMap says that this is a weblog format. A vote on whether people agree with that would be useful IMHO ...
[AsbjornUlsberg] I don't think Atom is or should be a Weblog format at all. I'll probably not use Atom for weblogging, hence it's not a weblog format for me. I think we should look at the format in more general terms without any strong couplings to weblogging. The format can be used for weblogging, but it isn't a weblog format. IMHO, of course.
[AsbjornUlsberg] I agree, the FrontPage should be changed. It has been commented by people not into this project that it's not informative enough. After reading it, people don't really know what Atom is.
[DavePawson] +1 to a feed format. KISS principle. Expansion once its stable? Easier to specify a well known item, as *nix proved.
[JeremyAshcraft] I believe that both are equally important to accomplish, but in the interest of getting things done, I see the feed as the greater priority. We need to be sure we do this right so it becomes the standard that everyone else in blogspace and feedspace adheres to.
[BjornBlomqvist] Atom should only be a feed format.
[StephanieBooth] Is there some explanation for the neophyte of what exactly and API is? From what I gathered, Atom looked to me as a "weblog format" (ie, something describing how a weblog should be structured, so that different blogging tools can have a common format), which can therefore be used as a feed. But what exactly is an API? And have I got it all wrong?
[SeairthJacobs] For specifics, take a look at RestEchoApiDiscuss. In this case, Atom documents would be used between an appropriate client and server to do things like create and update entries. By using Atom, people would already be familiar with parts of the API. It would also potentially mean fewer formats in use across applications. I have changed the above references of API to "editing". This is more acurately the part of an API that Atom would be used for. Atom itself would not actually be the API, only used as a part of one.
[JamesAylett] The Feed use above is presumably just intended for simple producer->aggregator-like behaviour (as it says, like RSS now). What about more sophisticated program to program communication (what has been termed Real Syndication by JeremyGray)? See AggregatorApi, and particularly the ideas there to try to support SuperAggregator profiles efficiently.
[JeremyGray] I did? In case someone's wondering, a few months ago I used the phrase "true syndication scenarios" or something like that to describe scenarios that go beyond publishing from the originating publisher to the end subscriber. Call it "re-publishing", call it "real/true syndication", call it what you want. Heck, call it "syndication". I make no claim to inventing any of the potential terms, expect no credit, and make no guarantees. 'Nuff said.
[DeveloperDude] Let's add a timeframe to move past this question/vote.
[JamesAylett] I agree with Seairth that we aren't close enough to a decision to lock this one down. We aren't even close enough to a discussion. There are half a dozen view points on the wiki about what Atom is/should/will be, and we really could do with getting a decision on some of these. Putting an arbitrary time frame on this may just lead to another naming disaster.
[DeveloperDude] Can we reset the deadline to November 15th or should it be removed entire?