Subject: Re: The Atom Format end-game

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 03:14:37 EST

In a message dated 1/6/2005 1:26:45 AM GMT Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> Beginning with the conclusion:
> 
> 1. We *must* finalize the format.  

Tim,

Are you saying that the "format" needs to be finalised? Or that the 
specification document for the Atom format needs to be finalised?

The way you express the "conclusion" seems to me to potentially confuse the 
two.

If you are referring to the specification document, when do you anticipate 
that a further draft of the specification document might be available so that 
contributors to this list and lurkers can make intelligent comment on the 
document?

> Our deadline is drawing near

Whose deadline? IETF's? One suggested/imposed by you and Paul? What, 
expressed in UTC, is the deadline?

A deadline for what? Is it a deadline for the next draft specification 
document or for a properly drafted specification document? When the current 
specification document is in a stage where it has comments like "[[ more motivation / 
design principles ]]" it seems to me that it may be premature to be pushing 
for "finalisation". If, for example, the design principles are not clearly 
expressed then, perhaps, it is premature to be pushing for "finalisation".

I would suggest that a further draft of the specification be produced. If you 
seriously consider that we are close to "finalisation" then that draft should 
be "complete", in the sense of expressing everything that is assumed to be 
decided.

Since the specification document is, I assume, the key deliverable it is only 
when we see how well that document expresses what we think (from our various 
points of view) has been "agreed" that it will be possible to say how close we 
are to be the format specification being finalised.

Thanks

Andrew Watt