Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Jonathan Eisenzopf <eisen@pobox.com> wrote:

> Aaron, I disagree in part. We tried to strike the right balance
> between ease of use and extensibility. It's normal that people
> will have issues; some are wining, some are constructive. When

I assume you mean whining (wait, am I whining, now?). :-)

> people say that RSS 1.0 is hard, my question is: compared to
> what? In my opinion, it's no harder than RSS 0.9 or RSS 0.91,
> only a bit different.

I know that personally, to understand something I need to get my head around
the mental model. RSS 1.0 includes RDF, which makes my head have to stretch
a bit more than usual. So, IMO it is a bit harder, because now I have to
read up on RDF.

> Also, compared to most, if not all other
> XML formats, it's sorta ridiculous to say the RSS 1.0 is
> "difficult". 

True, but that's not an excuse. Just because "everyone else is doing it"
doesn't make it right.

> Nevertheless, what we want to do is craft a spec that meets as
> many needs as possible. If people are having problems with the
> spec, let's address the issues and find a solution. We are
> dedicated to working with the community to get this thing to a
> place where people are comfortable with it, because that's why we
> did it and who we did it for.

I agree 100%.

> I believe that the spec document may have put off some non
> technical people. We are working to get materials for writers and
> programmers since their needs are different. We wanted to make
> sure there were enough technical details for programmers to
> develop tools for writers. The next step is to provide materials
> for writers.

That sounds like a great idea. Let me know if you need help.

Thanks,

-- 
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan