Re: Question.. why RSS and not Atom (Standard)?

[Mike Pearson]

Perhaps the Dataportability Policy group can help with this...

---

STANDARDS LIFECYCLE

Part of the discussion can be tied to the concept of a standards
lifecycle.
From http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/e-gif/e-gif-v-3-2/standards/chapter2.html

Standards go through the following lifecycle:-
* Future Consideration - emerging; keep an eye on it
* Under Development - playing with it
* Recommended - being used, being adopted
* Adopted - in use now, most common standard
* Deprecated - on its way out, transition off

---

TRANSITION PROCESS

In this example, RSS / ATOM, you have an older standard with a large
install base, and a new standard.

Such transitions take many years to work their way through, think
SSL / TLS or IPv4 / IPv6.

But should we be saying to people, if buying / specifying a new
system, pick RSS ?

Perhaps we need some decision criteria to help make these
recommendations.


---

STANDARDS DECISION CRITERIA

As a starter, here are some questions to ask, to help make
recommendations


- DRIVING FORCE?
Does the standard have sponsorship / endorsement by
- - - Internet bodies e.g. IETF / W3C / OASIS
or
- - - Vendors e.g. Google, Microsoft
or
- - - Interested volunteers e.g. me, you

- EVOLVING or FROZEN?
Does the standard have
- - - a change request process
- - - history of changes in reaction to new Internet technologies /
needs
- - - resources
- - - proof of the above working

SUPPORT?
Are there well defined support mechanisms to look after the standard
- - - Governance e.g. ISO / IETF / OASIS
- - - Guidance e.g. Principles / Policies / FAQs
- - - Infrastructure e.g. bulletin board, website, discussion area
- - - proof of the above working

ADOPTION?
Is the standard adopted or likely to be adopted
- - - In products
- - - In vendor announcements
- - - In the media
- - - In the zeitgeist


If we apply RSS / ATOM against such criteria, what recommendations
would we make?