RSS Politics
W3C had a meeting in NYC to discuss possibility of taking on the Atom spec. It’s an interesting read.
Basically, the discussion between Sam and Eric seems to have been productive. Sam and Eric are both open-minded about the extent to which RDF is or is not used in the new spec, and W3C seems willing to accomodate concerns about schedule, RF, and so on. Eric makes some points about how the process between WG/IG has worked in the SW activity, and I can concur that the SW activity has really improved in this area in the past couple of years.
Bob Wyman characteristicallyexpressed some fears about Microsoft:
There are W3C members who could join and get a vote who are in the RSS camp. Microsoft guys keep talking about RSS and trashing Atom. If we’re in the IETF, and have RSS vs. Atom, chair can say, fine, we have rough consensus on what Atom should be. You can go do RSS. In W3C, voting no because Atom shouldn’t exist.
Fortunately Eric and David set him straight right away, but apparently Lucas Gonze didn’t read the whole transcript. He posted Bob’s comment and piled on with his own gems:
Google loves Atom, Microsoft hates Google, and Dave hates Atom. — (on a new line) — I had a brief email conversation with Dave Winer today, and I thought: what an angry guy. It was really distasteful.
Since so many people are making claims about Microsoft, I might as well jump in.
First, be very clear. The ?debate? over Atom vs. RSS is a complete non-issue for Microsoft.Weuse RSS to serve thousands of customers right now, and most of the people setting up RSS feeds have never heard of the political ?debates?. RSS works for them, and that’s all they care about. On the other hand, if Atom ever reaches v1.0 and we had a business incentive to use it, we would use it. No need for debate.
Now, of the three or four people at Microsoft who know enough about Atom to have said anything about it, I wouldn’t say that anyone has trashed the format. I and others have pointed out that it’s just fine for what it does; just like RSS. If anything, I have asked hard questions about why I or any business decision maker should be spending resources on the whole debate right now. If a business has deployed using RSS, what financial motive would they have to switch to a new, nearly identical, format once it ships? I’ve got nothing against the Atom people inventing new syndication formats, but I just don’t see why *I* should be involved right now. There’s no good reason.
The other comment I’ve made before is that the Atom community is not being served by the polarizing attitudes of some participants. The ?us vs. them? comments arenot helpful, especially when untrue, and the constant personalization (?Support Atom because I hate Dave Winer!?) justdamages the credibility of the whole group (many of whom might have good motives for being involved).
In other words,I think most businessdecision makers feel the same way I do –They really don’t care to hear aboutyour petty personal politics and agendas. Just tell them what’s in it for them, andthey might support Atom. If you think that’s ?trashing? Atom, then you’re losing an important opportunity to make your case.
Andit’s silly to say that ?Microsoft Hates Google?, as if that explains away any comments that people have made about Google’s questionable actions. The two blogging products most associated with Microsoft; Dare Obasanjo’s RSS Bandit, and dasBlog (Clemens, Dare, and Omar) have both enabled Atom and RSS both for quite some time, and worked well with the community. On the other hand, Google sites were working fine with RSS, and Google then deliberately disabled RSS and forced usage of the evolving Atom drafts, driving a wedge into the community. Perhaps Google had noble ?don’t be evil motives?, or perhaps they were not so noble. Google is not beyond reproach, and nobody should apologize for holding them accountable. I would expect people to hold Microsoft accountable (and people do) if we made a move like that.