W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:13:50 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <89F03E70-3705-4042-9897-386D592BB7B1@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

 From the current state of the discussion, it seems like removing Atom  
conversion would draw the weakest objections.

It also seems like there are technical issues left to work out, and it  
would be good to decouple those from HTML5 Last Call, since the Atom  
conversion feature is tangential and logically built on top of HTML5  
itself. Furthermore, we currently have no implementation experience  
with this feature, and it seems like the details are tricky enough  
that we won't know the right answers until we have some.

It seems to me that dropping Atom conversion for now would help clear  
the path to Last Call, and would not preclude bringing back HTML5 ==>  
Atom conversion either as a separate spec or in the main draft if the  
technical issues are worked out to everyone's satisfaction, and we  
have enough implementation experience. We have some promising  
discussions, but they don't seem to be converging quickly on consensus.

Ian previously indicated he's willing to drop Atom conversion from the  
W3C copy of the spec.

Therefore, I agree that the most sensible option for now is to drop  
Atom conversion.

Would anyone object to this course of action?


On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> The other thread is getting so messy with so many change proposals,
> it's hard to figure what's going on.
> I think it would be best if we resolve one thing first, and then  
> move on.
> There's a change proposal...somewhere...about removing the Atom
> section from the spec. Several folks have expressed support for this
> option.
> Why don't we resolve this, first, then if the suggestion to remove the
> section fails, the group can move into the gory tech details.
> I haven't seen so much Atom stuff since I stopped following the Atom
> wiki years ago. A lot more than I would expect to see in a WG for
> Shelley
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 21:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC