Subject: Media extensions

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:56:48 +0200

Sam - would I be thinking you've been trying to encourage the Yahoo!
Media RSS folks to go IETF? What's the position with that?

Background - as I'm sure everyone is aware, both Yahoo! and Apple have
come out with extensions of RSS 2.0 for media. Yahoo! did there's in a
relatively open list, though not through a standards org (I think ).
Apple's was close-door, result: lot of overlap, clunky. But whatever,
there's a need for audio/visual media description support in Atom. It
would be better if this happened in a more controlled fashion than
what's happened with RSS.

Personally I'd like to see RDF compatibility from the start too. It's
relatively straighforward to cover the Yahoo! & Apple extensions in
the RDF model (with owl:equivalentProperty as appropriate) but I'm
betting the code to usefully convert from the syntaxes in a useful
fashion won't be trivial (how's validation coming along?). There's
been a fair amount of related work done around RDF already (though not
in the syndication domain), e.g.  MPEG-7 is available in OWL.

So, any thoughts on what might be a good approach to this?

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:53:28 -0700

Let's see if we can avoid the IETF process for now and encourage Yahoo 
and Apple to get together with the community to work on some a common 
approach, get some implementations out there to evolve it a bit, then 
evaluate later whether or not IETF standardization makes sense.  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 ;-)

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:31:57 +0200

* James M Snell <[email-masked]> [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 ;-)

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? 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. 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. 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.

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

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:39:51 +0200

> > 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> members who insisted on making haste with a Good Enough text.

Yep, good men.

Cheeers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:49:12 -0400

> What clients support podcasts in Atom?

NetNewsWire supports it.

Robert Sayre

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:18:24 -0700

>approach, now would be the time to do it.
Unfortunately, given the personalities involved with the podcasting 
arena I think attempting to get a formalized process going would cause 
more harm than good... regardless of whether it is the right thing to 
do.  It's best to let things evolve organically for now.

>What clients support podcasts in Atom? 
For what it's worth, I'm currently writing up an article for 
developerWorks that will discuss Atom podcasting (among other use cases) 
and will be offering a few examples on my personal blog in the not too 
distant future (probably next week)

- James

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:39:36 -0400

> process, effectively just a mailing list and editor. But then Apple

... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious to 
all that that which "did seem to work very well without any formal 
process", isn't going to work out very well long term.

While I don't believe that *every* extension needs to the "overhead" of 
a formalized standardization process, I do believe that there is enough 
interest in *this* extension that this particular effort would benefit 
from a wider set of participants.

Question: can anybody here quantify the "overhead" of the IETF 
standardization process?  While I certainly would label some of the last 
few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact of 
allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.

Yes, developing specs up to Atom 0.3 was much easier when Mark, Joe, I, 
and few others could just listen to feedback on mailing lists, blogs, 
and wikis, and do what we thought was best.

But Atom 1.0 is much better.  Much.

My $0.02.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:52:46 -0700

Sam Ruby wrote:

> ... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious 
> to all that that which "did seem to work very well without any formal 
> While I don't believe that *every* extension needs to the "overhead" 
> of a formalized standardization process, I do believe that there is 
> enough interest in *this* extension that this particular effort would 
> benefit from a wider set of participants.
>
> standardization process?  While I certainly would label some of the 
> last few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact 
> of allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.
>
> Yes, developing specs up to Atom 0.3 was much easier when Mark, Joe, 
> I, and few others could just listen to feedback on mailing lists, 
> blogs, and wikis, and do what we thought was best.
>
Agree on all counts.  I think that a formal standard for this 
application case would be ideal; would result in a much better product; 
and wouldn't be as difficult or take as long as many standards-critics 
would make folks believe.  I'm just not convinced that given the current 
state of things that it would be a successful endeavor.  I'd be happy to 
be proven wrong.

- James

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:05:02 +0200

* Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> [2005-07-16 22:00]:
> > 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?
> 
> NetNewsWire supports it.

So does Liferea.

And while most popular podcasts are probably RSS 2.0, but I would
be surprised if a number of podcasts aren’t provided in both
formats. I don’t know much about that, though, as I haven’t had
much interest in the phenomenon itself.

Regards,

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:58:56 -0400

> allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.

I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a
ghastly amount of debate on field names. If I were setting up a WG for
something like Media RSS, I would probably rule debate on field names
out of order (realizing that people have to pick something to propose
a *new* feature), and leave field names up to the editors until WG
last call.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Lucas Gonze <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:31:16 -1000

About a formal standards process, as far as I can tell the only two Bigs 
involved right now are Apple and Yahoo.  Is there anybody else? 

We can assume that Y! would be pretty friendly.  It's not a given that 
they would participate, but it's plausible.  Apple, though, is a 
different story.  Is there any reason to think that they would take it 
seriously?

---

From: Karl Dubost <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:04:52 -0400

Le 16 juil. 2005, à 13:53, James M Snell a écrit :
> evaluate later whether or not IETF standardization makes sense.

FYI:
Comparing Media RSS formats
http://www.w3.org/2005/07/media-and-rss

You can send comments, suggestions to improve the table.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:31:05 +0200

* Lucas Gonze <[email-masked]> [2005-07-17 03:40]:
> Apple, though, is a different story. Is there any reason to
> think that they would take it seriously?

Mostly this: http://tantek.com/log/2005/07.html#d10t0130

I don’t know if there’s been any other motion yet. Apple, the
company, apparently aren’t likely to officially bless any such
effort, instead considering it the team’s responsibility to
figure things out, much like they seem to be doing with Safari
and its standards compliance. The cultures at the two companies
obviously differ.

Regards,

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:41:47 +0100

> standardization process?  

1. No decisions in 10 minutes or less or the next one is free. Those
with formal roles (Chairs et al) can and do make tough sounding
utterances, but they don't count for much.

2. People turn up who are not in good standing with the body of work
past, issues are thusly reopened. I could imagine this being dealt with
via a firmer charter.

3. Roadblocking (lying down in the road). We lost weeks if not months
this year on that alone. Somebody is welcome to make an counter-argument
that this is superior to forking.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:56:56 -0400

On 7/16/05, Lucas Gonze <[email-masked]> wrote:
> different story. 

Apple is a pretty good Web standards citizen. Here's an example:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JulSep/0063.html

>  Is there any reason to think that they would take it seriously?

I would ask the opposite question. Why should they take yet another
"nonono, use *my* fork" conversation seriously? The last one didn't go
real well.

It's important to realize that choosing not to standardize carries a
risk as well. For example, an Evil Cadre of Large Corporations and
Their Pawns could standardize something similar. If something like
that happens, your evangelism effort will probably take more time and
energy than a standards organization would. The risk of someone else
doing something similar in a voting-based standards organization is
pretty high, and the damage/good of such an effort is unkown. Each
standards organization's process is a known quantity. I would jump
first if I were you.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:19:35 -0700

>a *new* feature), and leave field names up to the editors until WG

We don't need a new WG: it could possibly be done in this WG if there 
is interest in updating the charter and willingness from Scott 
Hollenbeck.

<co-chair-hat position='on'>I would only entertain a charter 
extension if we had a volunteer to be the document author, and 
expressed interest from developers. This will certainly be 
contentious.</co-chair-hat>

Alternatively, someone can write an individual Internet Draft that is 
just discussed on this list, with no rules about how changes are made 
to the draft. This is definitely lighter-weight, but much more likely 
to bring bad feelings and lack of consensus unless the draft authors 
are really good at listening. Still, it is easy to do.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:09:33 -0400

> are really good at listening. Still, it is easy to do. 

Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good listener:
Yahoo's David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other constituency
who've done their homework) want to use this WG as their venue, that
would be great. If not, I would be opposed to modifying the charter.
That seems like self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

Another way of putting it would be that, absent new participants, I
favor completing the autodiscovery and protocol drafts and closing the
WG.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:19:18 +0200

> favor completing the autodiscovery and protocol drafts and closing the

+1

I suspect the accumulated WG fatigue means probably the only viable
route would be with the help of new blood. That isn't to suggest a
completely new WG might not be appropriate, I honestly don't know.

It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be
abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then re-expressed as Atom &
RDF. Given that Atom (and RDF) both have fairly clean extension
mechanisms, it shouldn't be necessary to cover every edge case in the
'primary' media extension, just get the core down.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Lucas Gonze <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:41:53 -1000

>'primary' media extension, just get the core down.
Amen.  This is the most practical plan so far.  It brings in the energy 
and talent of the mainstream of syndication hackers, and it's a limited 
project instead of an open-ended one.

- Lucas