Subject: Re: Migrating extensions (was: [rss-media] Coexistence with Atom ?)

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 00:21:45 +0100

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:12:23 +0000, David Powell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> One of the reasons for proposing PaceExtensionConstruct [1] was to allow existing RSS extensions and RDF properties to be used in Atom.
> 
> If we have no model for extension elements, other than that they are bits of opaque infoset hanging in specific but meaningless places, then it seems that we need to redefine all existing extensions for use in Atom on a case-by-case basis.  This thread seems to confirm that.
> 
> Is that the best that we can come up with?

Try asking again in a year or so's time, when we have an audio
extension defined by Microsoft for Microsoft applications, a threading
extension defined by Google for Google applications and a video
extension defined by Yahoo for Yahoo applications. Case-by-case will
favour those with the weight to ensure enough deployment to bootstrap
general adoption. The long term network-effect driven gains of interop
are outweighed by the short-term competitive advantage of features.
Proprietary Atom solutions here we come!

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:37:52 +0000

> Proprietary Atom solutions here we come!

Now we're aware of the issue, what are the options for the format?

cheers
Bill

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:25:18 +0000

> Proprietary Atom solutions here we come!

I suggest we set up a panel to assess new extensions. They will solicit 
bids from all the major vendors for threading, video, audio etc and the 
best in each category will be chosen. If a vendor chooses to use there 
own extension over the one we choose for them, they will have just 48 
hours until bombing commences.

Graham

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:09:32 +0000

Robert Sayre wrote:
> Bill de hÓra wrote:
> As with anything, there will be a big mess, and then the good stuff will 
> get standardized. I don't see a problem.

In the long run we're all dead, is as good a riposte as any to that sirrah.

But, if people think extensions are an issue, then maybe there's spec 
text to be had, which is where I was trying to go.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:45:56 -0800

On Mar 5, 2005, at 6:25 AM, Graham wrote:

> I suggest we set up a panel to assess new extensions. They will 
> solicit bids from all the major vendors for threading, video, audio 
> etc and the best in each category will be chosen. If a vendor chooses 
> to use there own extension over the one we choose for them, they will 
> have just 48 hours until bombing commences.

Damn good thinking.  But bombing may be sub-optimal; how about 
retaining the services of a ring of ruthless hired killers instead?  
-Tim

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:50:07 -0800

Robert Sayre

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:50:23 +0100

> retaining the services of a ring of ruthless hired killers instead?

Yep. Even considering the economies outsourcing can offer, long term I
bet employment of mercenaries works out cheaper than the programmers
needed to support Nx(N-1) extensions...

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com