Re: [syndication] RSS Modularization Demonstration

[Rael Dornfest <rael@oreilly.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Stephen Downes wrote:

> I think it's very elegant. I could name a half dozen modules which
> should be candidates for inclusion. But what's better - we don't have
> to agree on these modules, just on how to point to them.

Yes, that's the beauty of using namespaces; we don't have to reinvent the
core RSS spec each time we want to add fun(ctionality).  

I do, however, want to stress the value of consensus on module purpose and
makeup in order to ensure interoperability.

Not that I'm raining on anyone's inventive parade, mind you.  Ad hoc
modules have their place (intra-corporate syndication, for example).  But
in order for folks to build parsers that take full advantage of much of
the metadata being syndicated, they have to have some idea of what to look
for.

A standard module registry, I believe, is very much in order.  An example
is the "XMTML Abstract Modules" page[1] at the W3C.  Something a little
more dynamic (read: DB Weblication with discussion and voting
capabilities) would be another way to do it.

> I appreciated the demonstration, which animates the concept very
> nicely.

Such was my intent.  There's sometimes quite a bit of abstract 
discussion assuming, sometimes incorrectly, that everyone's on the
same page and knows what we're talking about.  A picture, especially
in discussion of technical specifications, is indeed worth a thousand 
words (or emails ;-) and can dramatically reduce the barrier to 
entry for the uninitiated.

Rael

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/xhtml_modules.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rael Dornfest                  rael@oreilly.com
  Developer & Maven,             http://www.oreillynet.com
  The O'Reilly Network           http://www.oreillynet.com/~rael
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Have you seen Meerkat today?   http://meerkat.oreillynet.com