Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> wrote:

> Well i might be wrong here, but i don't see any reason why  RDF
> couldn't deal with the old <channel><item/><item/></channel>
> construct.  It struck me as very odd that the authors separated it
> out.  Why did they do that?

This is becoming a bit of a FAQ. Once again, we want
backwards-compatibility. This is the way it was done in RSS 0.9 (for no good
reason) and we didn't want to change it. This was fixed in RSS 0.91 (which
most of you use) but the new spec is based on 0.9. Does that make sense?

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