[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Ian Graham <ian.graham@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > To my mind the goal
> > should be a design such that, if you don't know the namespace-extended
> > portions, you can still usably process the 'core' RSS (or whatever) data
> > in the message - and, moreover, that the core should be really obvious
> > and simple to use/understand.
>
> I think this was always the idea -- the RSS core allows description of a
> "channel" with multiple "items" each of which have a "link". That's all it
> says, but all RSS files should have that. You can add whatever you want on
> top of that, but at least that will tie them all together.
Yes ideed. The core is lightweight, clean, simple, and backwardly
compatible with 0.9 -- yet _optionally_ extensible via XML Namespaces
and RDF.
> > In this sense, I see work on understanding the correct 'modules' to build
> > [as in http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/] as something that should happen
> > before RSS is redrafted....
>
> I don't quite understand. As I see it, modules are something that allow
> people to extend onto RSS, not something that fits into the core. I think
> your proposals would be great for an RSS 2, something where we can start
> fresh and throw away the Netscape baggage.
>
> Does this make sense?
I think it makes sense to build on the foundation of what's already there
and being used and see what we can accomplish before throwing anything
out and starting over. I'll, therefore, ask that folks wander on over
to the RSS-DEV mailing list (http://www.egroups.com/group/rss-dev), pull
up a chair, and roll up their sleeves.
Rael
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rael Dornfest rael@oreilly.com
Maven, http://www.oreillynet.com/~rael
The O'Reilly Network http://meerkat.oreillynet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------