Re: New WG for Atom? (was Re: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-00)

[Kyle Marvin <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, James M Snell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> A new workgroup chartered to focus on specific extensions to the Atom
> format would be valuable and welcome. There are several drafts, such as the
> Bidi extensions, that I would really like to see finalized and standardized.
>  I would gladly participate.


Sorry to be slow to reply (I've been OOTO), but I'd be supportive and
willing to participate  as well.

-- Kyle


>
> - James
>
>
> Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>  Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that the contents of the link element are inlined content are
>>>>> adding an extension without explicitly identifying it; this may conflict
>>>>> with future uses.
>>>>>
>>>> Our proposal is /the/ future use, so I don't see how it can conflict
>>>> with future uses. It is our intention to promote an extension of Atom. By
>>>> submitting the I-D to the IETF and by bringing this discussion to
>>>> atom-syntax, we have made the intention quite clear, don't you agree?
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the point is that this is not an extension point for general use;
>>> thus if it is to be used it would need to be done by a spec that's on the
>>> standards track, and updates RFC4287. For that you'll likely need a WG to
>>> reach the consensus that *this* is the way to go.
>>>
>>
>> The IETF AD for Applications has already suggested that she would be
>> supportive of a new WG to look at this issue. Frankly, IETF needs to look at
>> the issue of hierarchical representation in Atom. Frankly, there is a lot of
>> experience in dealing with hierarchy in Atom/AtomPub. It would be futile to
>> think otherwise. As examples, take a look at Google's GData APIs and
>> Microsoft's ADO.NET use of Atom/AtomPub.
>>
>> I was dissuaded from submitting the atompub-hierarchy I-D along standards
>> track, but it looks like the right way to proceed. Of course, that also
>> means getting together a new WG. Would you be willing to help form such a
>> WG?
>>
>>  It is a different story if Atom cannot be extended as we wish. May be it
>>>> would be useful if you or others who claim that our approach is wrong can
>>>> explain what is the process for extending Atom. Is it creating a brand new
>>>> working group?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Atom format has extension points that allow distributed
>>> extensibility, but the content of atom:link isn't one of them, as far as I
>>> can tell.
>>>
>>
>> It was never the intention of atom-hierarchy I-D to perform independent
>> extension of Atom. Therefore, I don't see this as a problem.
>>
>> Nikunj
>> http://o-micron.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>