Subject: Evangelism, etc.

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:19:56 +0200

If I could distract folks from the champagne and crudities for a moment:

First - I just received a rewrite of the spec draft in nicely-styled
XHTML 1.0, from someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) who refers to
the IETF docs as "sooooo 1989" -

http://dannyayers.com/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.xhtml

Second - I just read 3 reviews of Atom (linked from Dave Winer's blog)
containing significant criticism, much of it valid. However the target
of these posts wasn't Atom itself, but the 'RSS 2.0 and Atom Compared'
doc (on the Wiki/Tim's snapshot). It does make sense to make the info
available in a friendly fashion, but in this case it seems to have
backfired. A suggestion for subsequent material - assume the RSS
community doesn't know the difference between normative and
informative.

Third - any suggestions for something useful to do with the 'Finally
Atom' blog/data [1]? I set it up on a TypePad account when they were
beta, but have been paying for it since they came out of beta. I can't
really justify the expense any more, especially since I don't really
have time to make it any more interesting than endless 'X supports
Atom'. (I don't think the protocol needs promotion in the same way as
the format did).
On a not-unrelated note - who's the best contact for atomenabled.org?  

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://danja.typepad.com/fecho/

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:18:40 +0200

Danny Ayers wrote:
> ...

Just run the XML version of the spec through rfc2629toXhtml.xslt 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629toXHTML.xslt>).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:40:25 -0400

> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629toXHTML.xslt>).

There is an HTML version of the spec here: http://atompub.org/. It was
there when Danny sent his email, so I'm not sure what all the whinging
is about.

Cleaning up the XML version  of the spec for re-use is a little bit of
work, since it's actually part of a build process that validates the
examples and inserts the schema and fragments from external files.
Secondly, the spec hasn't been approved by the IESG yet, so
replicating possibly-inaccurate copies of the spec claiming to be
"Atom 1.0" could be bad. Ideally, I would want to wait until any bugs
were fixed in AUTH48, but I recognize that will probably be too long a
wait. So, I will clean up the XML version after IESG approval and make
it available.

If folks want to make the HTML version of the spec on atompub.org
fancier in some way, that's no problem.  Also, atompub.org is
currently hosted by yours truly, but I'm not attached to it. If
someone wants to improve it, take it over, host it in a secure
facility, etc I'd be happy to transfer it or share responsibility.
Contact me offline if interested.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:16:44 -0400

On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers <[email-masked]> wrote:

> backfired. 

I found the criticism pathetic. 

Don Park:

"They used the roadmap to portray RSS as a deadend road." -- Uh, the
point was that the IETF process allows bugfixing (Draft Standard, Full
Standard) if absolutely necessary. The "Dave Winer process" does not
allow for this. Tim's document is clear.

"Sillyness followed by misinformation. HTML is not XML which is why
HTML had to be escaped. They also failed to note that there are XHTML
embedding issues." -- RSS2's description element can't contain XHTML.
Once again, the point couldn't be more correct.

"Both mentioned specs can be used in RSS 2.0 just fine." -- yeah, if
you, um, standardize on how you're going to use them. Accurate once
again.

As for Alex Bosworth's post, a commenter said "This post is rubbish
and way off base." I'm inclined to agree. Seems like a publicity
stunt.

Robert Sayre

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:07:23 +0200

* Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> [2005-07-16 19:50]:
> There is an HTML version of the spec here: http://atompub.org/.
> It was there when Danny sent his email, so I'm not sure what
> all the whinging is about.

I like both versions for different reasons. Thanks, of course,
for providing a HTML rendition – I, too, have to say I find the
ASCII versions very 1989. (I use rfc.net to read RFCs so there is
at least a modicum of formatting and actual, you know, links.)

> replicating possibly-inaccurate copies of the spec claiming to
> be "Atom 1.0" could be bad.

People should be implored to keep the draft-foo moniker and keep
an eye on the process in order to update their copies if they do
want to host such, I guess. All copies/renditions I’ve seen so
far would seem to satisfy the criteria. But yeah, spreading
copies that run the risk of getting outdated is unwise. I think
the addresses we have so far (per IETF, on atompub.org, and the
other fancy copy on Danny’s site) should suffice as bookmark
fodder.

> Also, atompub.org is currently hosted by yours truly, but I'm
> not attached to it.

Thanks for your investment here, also.

> Contact me offline if interested.

You mean offlist? :-)

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:18:22 +0200

>at least a modicum of formatting and actual, you know, links.)

There is http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/ of course...
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:52:13 +0200

> I found the criticism pathetic.

Well, yes, but you're more familiar with the reality than most people
that are likely to read that post.
 
> and way off base." I'm inclined to agree. Seems like a publicity

Quite possibly. But such things will influence the adoption of Atom.
Put it this way - there are millions of RSS 1.0 feeds out there, and
pretty much all tools support it. Yet even well-informed people are
pointing to "RSS 2.0 and Atom Compared" as if there were no other
alternative.
I hardly think RSS 2.0 has gained the popularity it has through
technical merit.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:53:45 +0200

On 7/16/05, Walter Underwood <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But there is a point buried under all that. What are the changes required
> to support Atom? It looks complicated, but how hard is it? Here is a shot
> at that information.

Thanks Walter, this is good...

> For publishers, you need to be precise about the content. There are fallbacks,
> where if it is any sort of HTML, send it as HTML, and if it isn't, send it
> as text. The XHTML and XML options are there for extra control.
> 
> Also, add an ID. It is OK for this to be a URL to the article as long as
> it doesn't change later. That is, the article can move to a different URL,
> but keep the ID the same.
> 
> Add a modified date. The software probably already has this, and you can
> fall back to the file last-modified if you have to. But if there is a
> better date available, use it.
> 
> The ID and date are required because they allows Atom clients and aggregators
> to "get it right" when tracking entries, either in the same feed or when the
> same entry shows up in multiple feeds.
> 
> Extending Atom is different from extending RSS, because there are more options.
> The mechanical part of extensions are covered in the spec, to guarantee that
> an Atom feed is still interoperable when it includes extensions. The political
> part of extensions has two options: free innovation and standardization. Anyone
> can write an extension to Atom and use it. Or, they can propose a standard to
> the IETF (or another body). The standards process usually means more review,
> more interoperability, and more delay in deploying it. Sometimes, the delay
> is worth it, and we hope that is true for Atom.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:57:35 -0700

> I found the criticism pathetic. 

A little lame, at least. You can't add precision and interoperability
with innovation and extension.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity