Re: [syndication] Total confusion in RSS-Land

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

Ken, I don't want to work with you, I don't like how you play, and I don't
think you "get" this stuff. I want a divorce. How do we split the house and
kids and bank accounts? Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken MacLeod" <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] Total confusion in RSS-Land


> "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com> writes:
>
> > > I agree; if we can leverage other work without making ours
> > > needlessly complex, let's do it, rather than refuse to recognize
> > > other work out of the fear that everyone isn't familiar with it,
> > > etc.
> >
> > Well, here's the deal, I'm very confused about what's going on
> > here. I suppose many other people are as well. I've been reading the
> > archives of RSS-DEV, after participating and asking directly (a
> > couple of months ago) where they're going, and never got an answer.
>
> Maybe the folks working on RSS0.92 (RSS0.91+a few more elements)
> should draft a charter or FAQ describing what their intent and goals
> are.  As I've read various messages, and as just one observer I can
> definitely be wrong about what the group as a whole really intends,
> the current goal appears to be to find a few well agreed upon elements
> that would be useful to add to RSS0.91 without breaking the "spirit"
> of RSS0.91.
>
> Since several of the proposed elements overlap existing 'net projects,
> it would seem very relevant and on-topic for members of the group who
> are aware of these other projects to bring them to the attention of
> the entire group, which is exactly what was done here.
>
> I don't think the proposal was to "adopt Dublin Core in whole", but
> rather to reuse the definitions used in Dublin Core, where applicable,
> for any similar elements adopted for RSS0.92.
>
> Nothing on the net stands in isolation forever, eventually everything
> gets hooked up to something else.  Agreeing on definitions of what
> things are, especially when they are otherwise already well-known,
> make that a lot simpler and easier to do.
>
>   -- Ken
>
>
>