I'm Jonas Galvez, a JavaScript and Go engineer at STORED e-commerce. I started my carreer as an ActionScript developer 18 years ago. Since then, I've had a 10-year long affair with Python and have now returned to ECMAScript land.

I'm an eternal student of distributed systems and practitioner of minimalism.

I build and deploy my stuff with Vue, Nuxt, Go and Kubernetes nowadays.

Check out my dedicated page to my professional influences.

I am driven by purpose and cultivate a stoic attitude towards life.

Atom IETF Discussion

I've been lurking on the AtomSyntax mailing-list for quite some time now, and I'm finding the way the project evolves very interesting.

The group has always kept the discussion focused on technical issues and getting things done, but recently there has been a flurry of talk regarding the decision of whether to go to the W3C or IETF.

Both standards bodies are very receptive. The W3C entered the scene late by making an invitation at a rather inconvenient time. The Atom members had just sent their formal proposal to the IETF. After much talk, and despite the insistence of the W3C folks, the IETF accepted the creation of an Atom WG. From what I can see, most of the Atom mailing-list active members are happy with this, they just want to get back to technical issues as soon as possible, but there are some people who are still fighting to take the standard to the W3C. Here's a snippet from the ongoing [discussion]]:

On a sad note, I have recently heard from a few companies who would like to implement Atom but will only support this if it becomes a W3C standard not an IETF spec. While I feel this is shortsighted, this is a reality and something to consider.

Here's a response from Joe Gregorio:

On a sad note I heard from a few companies who would like to implement Atom but will only support this if it becomes a W3C standard not an IETF spec. Now, they had to call me by phone since they don't use email (RFC 821). And I would love to point to their web site but they don't have one because that would require DNS (RFC1034, RFC1035). They considered using raw IP addresses but that wouldn't help with the web pages since they can't use HTTP (RFC 2616, RFC 2617).

Shall I go on?

I'm calling this for what it's worth. FUD. If these companies really exist and are that concerned with a move to the IETF then they should join the list and voice their concerns directly, not anonymously by proxy.

I've added the links to the IETF specifications Joe cites. I think that for a moment in this whole discussion, I had forgotten how great the IETF is. What they are responsible for. They're basically responsible for the core standards that form the base of what we know as a internet. The IETF is a solid, strong, and well respected organization, and I just thought I'd share this little fact to anyone who's saddened Atom is not going to the W3C anymore.