Signin
Making Atom Happen

As I commented on Scoble's post, I believe the Atom initiative is dead in the water despite apparent signs of Google adoption.  That is too bad because the real strength of the initiative is the list of people and companies who have pledged support for the initiative.  As Scoble pointed out, if Google adopts Atom then Microsoft will have to support at least two feed formats and this raises the question of "Why not Microsoft's own format?"  We are heading down the wrong road.

IMHO, the most practical path out of this mess is for the Atom initiative to hi-jack RSS 2.0 and build on it without breaking backward compatibility.  A new spec will obviously have to be written to avoid copyright problems with Dave's version of the RSS 2.0 spec, but people were complaining about the old spec anyway.

As to the Atom API, I won't bitch about it any more if RSS 2.0 is adopted as the core Atom feed format because the feed format is far more important than the API.  This should satisfy Evan Williams since his real beef is with the API.  Yes, there are some issues people have with RSS 2.0 but they can be ignored or worked-around with extensions until later, hopefully much later.

The best part of this solution is that everyone will feel like they got screwed.

Comments
I want to avoid situations where everyone feels they got screwed. I want the opposite, for everyone to feel like they won.

Party-Pooper! You are suppose to say Ouch!;-p
I explained a strategy for solving this a while back:

I see your point, Keven. The problem is that it's too expensive to scalable it up, particularly since there is no financial reward for winning the war.
Kevin, Don is right, what's the incentive to be the guy running the intermediary. Would your employer do it? What do you get for it?
Scalable it up? Urgh. I am mangling English with sloppy editing.
"Yes, there are some issues people have with RSS 2.0 but they can be ignored or worked-around with extensions until later, hopefully much later."

Yes... but... what about RDF? ;)
Michael's right, now *is* the time. RSS is in a mire, partly because backwards compatibility with previous Userland versions has been given priority over improvements. The landscape has changed considerable since RSS 0.9x, and reevaluation is well overdue. A lot of people want to do a lot more than "Simple Syndication". The politics are another story, but one that points very strongly towards there being a need for Atom.

Danny, I am all for doing a lot more than "Simple Syndication", but the current Atom feed format has no significant advantage over RSS 2.0. Why can't we do what we all want with what we already have without changing the carpet?
As per usual, Danny Ayers definition of "all the big players" is highly suspect.

Don, This may seem a bit pie-in-the-sky, but one major criteria for the design of the Atom feed and API specs is to enable currently unforseen uses for syndication.

Mr. Bernstein,

Michael, I like that feature. Could you explain why that would not be possible by adding a new module to RSS 2.0? Having to store and coding against multiple feed formats also make no sense to me.
jt, what is the 'Z' which RSS provides and Atom cannot? And the export/import 'feature' was just one small example (and not the main motivation for the decision, in any case, which was alternative representations in a feed).

Mr. Bernstein,

Adam Smith   at 2003/12/03 04:02:50 PM
Don Park wrote:

Nice try, but Dave Winer said that a year-and-a-half ago, iirc. So what changed this past summer?

jt, Why exactly do you think that 'Channel Z' won't be possible with Atom?

Mr. Bernstein,

"From a practical standpoint, [...] an implementation beats a spec by a FER piece, 99 times outta a hundred."

Comment has been disabled for this post.