Sam Ruby wrote:
Danny Ayers wrote:
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...
... 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
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
