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

[Jonathan Eisenzopf <eisen@pobox.com>]

Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> 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?). :-)
> 
Right. My spell checker missed that.

> > 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.
>
You have a point. If RDF really is a problem for alot of people,
I think taking it out is something we should consider, but it
needs to be balanced with the advantages too. So far, I haven't
heard any arguments that make the RDF declaration that difficult
since you can simply ignore the fact that it's in use altogether.
The advantages of using RDF are great from a programming
perspective since it enables a processor to validate an RDF
schema. From the user's perspective, it's only an extra line at
the top. Still, there have been enough inquiries I think that
someone should give a simple intro to RDF.

I will concede BTW, that the RDF spec is difficult to understand
by a non-computer scientists. This is something that will have to
be remedied if it is to see wide use.
 
> > 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.
>
Good point.
 
> > 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.
>
Well, yes. We need as much help as possible. I don't think that
any of the RSS 1.0 authors would propose that they have all the
answers. All contributors are welcome.

-- 
Jonathan Eisenzopf    |  http://motherofperl.com    
eisen@pobox.com       |  http://perlxml.com
Perl Hacker           |  http://dc.pm.org