Mark Pilgrim on the move:

Atom 0.3 was just some guys (and gals) dicking around on a wiki.

Mark Pilgrim during the release of version 0.3:

Atom 0.3 is out. Mark Nottingham wrote the 0.3 spec. I wrote a Movable Type template. Rael Dornfest wrote a Blosxom plugin. I am now publishing a live 0.3 feed with both excerpts and full content. ... I've updated the Feed Validator to validate Atom 0.3 feeds. ... When developers update their applications to support Atom 0.3, they should support Atom autodiscovery too.

2005/07/21 · 7 COMMENTS · Link

Comments

The funny thing is that Mark is indignant about this- along with Sam and Tim. They won't even acknowledge that maybe the best thing to do would be to promote the hell out of Atom 1.0 and just hope that 0.3 dies off over time. They don't see to think that tossing users and devs overboard matters one bit.

#1 · Randy H. · 2005/07/21

Mark and Sam and Tim aren't going to reach onto your servers and your aggregators on Novermber 1st or whatever and stop your Atom 0.3 feeds from working. Rather, the Validator is going to make noise when it's fed a deprecated format.

I fail to see this as a huge issue.

#2 · d.w. · 2005/07/22

When the validator calls a valid Atom 0.3 feed an error, users will send bug reports and/or complaints to the creator of the software they've been using to produce their Atom feeds.

Personally, I think that's an unnecessary hassle for the implementors. Tell people that 1.0's available, but don't claim that a valid 0.3 feed is an error.

#3 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2005/07/22

How man end-users of the validator are technical enough to (want to) use it but incapable of checking their publishing software for updates when they encounter a descriptive error?

#4 · d.w. · 2005/07/23

"With the impending release of Atom 1.0, its creators are taking the unusual step of disowning version 0.3..."

Facts Rogers?

The creators of Atom 1.0 (the Atom WG) are not disowning 0.3.

A fair number of the group's members believe Atom 0.3 should be strongly deprecated, and not treated as yet another syndication format. One of the group blogged to that effect, along with his intention to follow the normative decisions of the WG, i.e. to be Atom a document must follow the 1.0 spec.

I also fail to see this as a huge issue.

#5 · Danny · 2005/07/24

If Sam's carrying out the wishes of the Atom Working Group by deciding to call a valid 0.3 feed an error, as you state, then I think it's fair to call this a decision by Atom's creators.

I'm aware that Atom proponents don't consider this a big deal. It's a philosophical difference between the RSS and Atom communities. Calling something that works an error wouldn't happen in RSS 2.0.

#6 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2005/07/26

adipex 37.5 insomnia. egeag

#7 · visitor · 2006/09/19

Add a Comment

All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).