Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 04/14/2010 04:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 14.04.2010 21:58, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> Given that discussion has died down, and that this proposal has gotten
>>>> several indications of support and (as of yet) no objections, at this
>>>> time I would like anybody in the Working Group that has reason to object
>>>> to this item to state so now. If none come forward, the chairs will
>>>> issue a Call for Consensus.
>>> If the W3C HTML WG does not want to define a mapping from HTML to Atom,
>>> then I'm happy to remove it from the W3C copy of the spec. However, the
>>> text would remain in the WHATWG copy as the WHATWG has received feedback
>>> asking for such a mapping to be defined, and defining one seems harmless.
> Speaking only as a member of the Atom community: the notion of defining one
> not only seems harmless, it actually is (mildly) appealing.  That being
> said, what is currently in the draft specification is actively harmful.  It
> is my hope that any browser vendor strongly consider the input of the Atom
> community before implementing what is currently spec'ed.
>> In which case I recommend that you seek the feedback of the Atom
>> community, and fix potential bugs in the spec (such as thise described
>> in my first change proposal, but there may be more).
> If there is a consensus to fix these and other bugs, then I would support an
> Atom mapping remaining in the W3C HTML5 spec.
>> Best regards, Julian
> - Sam Ruby
Then, for whatever it's worth, I withdraw my support for this proposal.

There is no necessity to provide an HTML to Atom mapping in the W3C
HTML5 specification. All it does is add to an overly large
specification, and provides little that is useful, considering that
most Atom feeds are generated from SQL Databases. In addition, it bogs
the group down with discussions that have little relation to this
group's core interest -- whatever that is.


Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:25:46 UTC