Atom at W3C?
Scott Hollenbeck: The ATOMPUB WG was not approved during today's IESG telechat, primarily because of comments sent to the IESG from Eric Miller of the W3C.
Overall, I agree with Tim Bray's take, with the following additional observations:
- 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.
- Mark Nottingham has some concerns, praise, and identifies the key: a well written charter.
Eric imagines that something like GRDDL would be discussed. I don't have a problem with that presuming that there are volunteers. My experience with commercial software is that when asked, users have lots of requirements. However, when asked which of these they would be willing to pay for, the list shrinks considerably. I have a similar experience with open source where contributions can be made directly to the code.
This leads me to wonder how the draft IETF Charter would need to change in order to become a W3C Charter. It would seem to me that someone from the W3C would be in the best position to answer this. Any takers?