The news this morning, as reported by both sides of the larger syndication debate, is that the W3C's Atom pitch seems to have done little to abate the format's IETF inertia (Dave Winer's take; Sam Ruby's take). Matt May explains why he thinks the W3C is the appropriate home for Atom:
A W3C Recommendation comes with a test suite, which is hugely beneficial on specs that require a great deal of interop. It comes with proof of interoperable implementations, developer testimonials, and publicity. Not bad for free.
I'll let those familiar with each organization discuss the internal differences between the two groups. But while everyone close to the format contemplates completion schedules and decision-making guidelines -- important matters, to be sure -- I'm wondering which body will accelerate adoption of the format. To the average developer the W3C means Web standards. XHTML, CSS, and even XML, of which Atom is a vocabulary, are each W3C standards. The obvious consequence of hosting multiple successful, pervasive formats is that the W3C has become the Web's de facto standards body (second only to the WaSP in a Google search for "web standards").
Most developers are familiar with both the style and format of W3C documentation and with the validators that support it. Content producers, especially the newcomers who are summarily directed to a W3C validator the first time they ask for help with CSS, will be more likely to find and support Atom if it's in turn supported by the same group that brought them every other standard with which they're familiar.
Everything I create on the Web for the foreseeable future will be marked-up with XHTML, styled with CSS, and syndicated with Atom. It would be nice -- not necessary, but nice -- to find all three formats in the same place.