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

[Gary Teter <bigdog@bulldogbeach.com>]

on 8/21/00 4:31 PM, Rael Dornfest at rael@oreilly.com wrote:

> Ivory tower suggests something being handed down from "on high."  Upon
> suggestion, we wrote something up that we thought was rather nice, and
> opened it up as a mailing list-based working group.  Rather grass-roots, I
> would say.

You're right, I apologize for the term, and I should have taken part in the
working group instead of just bitching about it now. My only excuse is that
I've been very, very busy... :-)

> What we did was go back to something rather
> basic and allow folks to build "what they like" without having it bloat
> the core and clash with other folks wants, needs, and naming schemes.

You know, I agree with everything you're saying. I liked the spec when I
first read it. I still like it, especially from an abstract perspective. It
really tickles my "geek bone" -- I like it, I like RDF, I think it's all
very cool.

I just don't understand, practically speaking, why RDF needs to be a part of
the syndication process. Maybe I'm just being bone-headed here. What am I
missing? Why isn't it possible to have namespaces in some version RSS
without RDF? What makes RDF a must-have in RSS?

-- 
Gary Teter, Big Dog
Bulldog Beach Interactive http://www.bulldogbeach.com
WireHose: The WebObjects portal framework http://www.wirehose.com