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

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Jonathan Eisenzopf <eisen@pobox.com> writes:

> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> > 
> > The more I read the less I understand why added complexity
> > as to be pushed trough the throats of RSS users.
> > 
> > To be accepted by RDF tools?
> Nope.
> 
> > How are the RSS 0.91 to 1.0 converters make things simpler?
> >
> It's simply a service. Just like 0.9 to 0.91 converters.
>  
> > Why must people making simple uses of RSS be forced to use
> > converters and change home made tools (e.g. XSLT templates)
> > to be 1.0 compatible when they get no added value from the
> > added complexity?
> >
> Nobody is forcing anyone to use RSS 1.0 or to use a converter.

Uhm, unless someone proposes an alternative RSS path moving forward
that offers similar benefits of extensions that RSS 1.0 proposes, yes,
anyone who wants the benefits of RSS moving forward is going to be
forced to pay the cost.

A common [bad] argument for RDF and namespaces has been "if you don't
want to use it, you can stay backwards and stagnant."  There are
better arguments, we need to be making them clearer.

> > Is this supposed to force all RSS users into accepting RDF?
> >
> No. RDF was already part of the original 0.9 spec.

Not to this degree, promoting module authors to use RDF syntax to
extend RSS.

  -- Ken