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

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eisen@eisen.wwind.com [mailto:eisen@eisen.wwind.com]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Eisenzopf
>
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> >
> > 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.

That was not the point.
Thinks like namespaces still can cause headaches to many people
and converters are not going to change that.


> > 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.

Is that a constructive answer?


> > Why shouldn't the RDF users that want to parse RSS data pay
> > the complexity price and use the converters themselves?
> >
> They certainly can if they like.

Is this constructive too?


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

Mostly in the acronym.
To use 0.9x one could be completely unaware of RDF issues that
popped up even in the simple samples presented before.


> > Is fake "fake sympathy" a too strong expression?
> >
> We have seriously weighed these issues. That is why the spec is
> simple, yet extensible.

"We have seriously weighed these issues" is the kind of amorphous
answer I as complaining about.


> Hmmm. You aren't listening too well then. There's a mailing list
> for RSS 1.0 where people are giving their input and forward
> movement is being made. I dare to say we've been encouraging
> feedback and suggestions.

We have a different perspective on who has listening problems.


This is a list where people that use RSS in a simple way are better
represented. I do not think that RSS-DEV is so focused on the
"populist" side of RSS.

If complains on lack of simplicity are not acknowledged here, what
can I expect in RSS-DEV.

Issues like the forced use of namespaces, even for the 0.91
compatibility issues where mentioned here and disregarded with the
already traditional "We have seriously weighed these issues".


I do not have a problem myself on using your spec. My grasp of XML
goes more than far enough for that.

It is not about me that I am concerned. What happens is that I know
a lot of people that make productive work, that can use RSS 0.91
but have a problem with issues like namespaces.

And I am only talking about namespaces. Not to mention other more
radical changes that were already mentioned.


I use quite complex stuff when it serves me too, but I still
understand the need and the usefulness of keeping RSS a "POPULIST"
technology.

  There must be a way of writing a RSS files just as they used to
  be for what they used to do.

  There must be a way of keeping the same structure and only adding
  complexity (namespaces included) when getting something extra out
  of it.

I still did not see you considering the possibilities of doing this
or explaining why you don't. We are just getting:
  "We have seriously weighed these issues"


> > The only thing that is coming back to those users is a lot of
> > "semantic"-semi-academic BS that they do not even want to deal
> > with - they just want SIMPLE use, remember?
> >
> We are working hard to provide practical examples, tutorials, and
> tools. You are being overly critical of a proposal that's been
> out for not much longer than a week.

That does not mean making it simple.
That means trying to explain the complexities.


> Dunno, perhaps you can enlighten us?
>
> > Is SIMPLE a lost notion for you?
> >
> I think it will be hard to argue that the RSS 1.0 proposal is not
> simple.

Relative to what?

Anyway, it the spec it self could be even more complex provided the
extensibility it offers, AS lONG AS:
  It would be possible to write RSS files just as they used to be
  for what they used to do.

Then you will have:
 - Just as it was for simple users;
 - All the stuff for the power users.


> > Again, why not putting the onus of complexity just on those
> > that profit from it?
> >
> We are doing exactly that. The core is simple. It's up to the
> users to extend it and add complexity.

You got too used to complex stuff. What is simple for you is not
for many RSS users.

Don't you know people that get confused with "simple" things like
the over mentioned namespaces but still can do a lot with HTML and
RSS?
I know a lot.

Lynn Siprelle, being more advanced than most of those I know, made
that point in previous postings. And it ended like this:


> >I see RSS as moving away from a simple XML
> >language for the people, and more towards a communication system for
content
> >management systems and other scripting environments. It may not be the
> >choice you believe in, but it's a choice that the authors are making.
There
> >will always be other formats if you don't agree.
>
> That answers my question. I guess my partner and I will be developing
> a simpler format for our project on our own. Thanks, Aaron!
>
> Lynn

Did you notice that?
Are you serving a community? Or just waiting that the "opposition" quits?

I am sorry if I am being provocative but, anyway, smoothness isn't getting
anything more than:
  "We have seriously weighed these issues".

Please consider those issues harder.


Have fun,
Paulo