RE: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

Couldn't agree more.

> I think the key issue here is that sometimes, adding a little bit of
> complexity up front actually simplifies things down the road.

That's the point I wanted to make in my previous posting in much less
words.

And again, namespaces are not that hard. Even using them in XSLT is not
that hard.
(I started using XML this year... so I should remember.)


Have fun,
Paulo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Bohlman [mailto:ebohlman@netcom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 09:19
>
>
> I think the key issue here is that sometimes, adding a little bit of
> complexity up front actually simplifies things down the road.  Yes,
> namespaces are kind of ugly and have a bit of a learning curve, but in
> this case, that learning pays off because you can use it to modularize
> your syndication format rather than trying to stuff the kitchen sink into
> the core.
>
> Of course, namespaces make things harder for the legendary Desperate Perl
> Hacker, but nowadays the Perl community (and the Python community, and the
> Tcl community, and ...) has access to well-crafted parsers that, among
> other things, handle namespaces, so it's only the *very* desperate Perl
> hacker (i.e. the one doing CGI work on a super-cheap Web host that won't
> do more than bung a copy of an old Perl executable up on their site) who's
> hurt by this, or the John David Galt wannabe who's philosophically opposed
> to building on others' work.
>
> I'd much rather see a very simple core, with namespaces being used to
> include elements serving various specialized purposes, than a very
> cluttered core that tries to simultaneously cater to every conceivable
> form of syndication.
>