On 7/16/05, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-16 20:05]: > > If the community can drive a viable solution without the > > overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work > > out best for everyone and the anti-formal-standards crowd will > > have far less to complain about or will at least be able to > > devote more time to bashing atom ;-)
Yahoo!'s approach did seem to work very well without any formal process, effectively just a mailing list and editor. But then Apple came along... > Yeah – wasn't the idea about specifying extension mechanisms so > thoroughly in the Atom format spec that it would allow anyone to > bolt on things via a variety of available hooks, ad-hoc, without > needing to define semantics and having worry about interop anew > each time? Indeed it was. But for the extensions themselves, there is still plenty of scope for poor design and near-(but not quite)-duplication of work. I'm honestly not sure there's any group activity that could help, but while there are still people in the room I think it's worth considering. *If* a WG-like approach to media in Atom was the best approach, now would be the time to do it. A strong base spec should be able to carry organic > growth without requiring reliance on the legitimization of a > standards body to make things work; legitimization can be granted > retrospectively by writing down existing practice. (I am reminded > of Shirky's "praise of evolvable systems." And heck, Atom itself > is an example of this.) > > So yeah, I don't Yahoo or Apple need to be pushed towards a > standards body. It would be enough if are willing to iterate > their specs before finalizing them, with input from a crowd of > eyeballs. Apple seems willing to do that now; John Gruber argues > it's because they were scampering to get to the market with > podcasting in iTunes. Ah, that's good to hear. > Yahoo has been, from the start. > > I think the timing for Atom going gold couldn't have been much > better; had it taken a bit more time, then all discussion of the > podcasting and media extensions would have had to revolve solely > around RSS since there wouldn't have been any Atom format to > think about. Hmm, how podcasts are there? How many are in Atom? How do you even *do* a podcast in Atom? (This is kind-of what I'm trying to get at ;-) What clients support podcasts in Atom? We should be glad that the spec was pushed through > at the final stages; a tip of the hat to the WG chairs and > members who insisted on making haste with a Good Enough text. Yep, good men. Cheeers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
