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

[James M Snell <[e-mail]>]

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.

- 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
>
>