RE: [syndication] A message to the lurkers on the list

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

I already wanted that a few weeks ago.

What I said was something along the lines that "those that do not want
the extra features should not pay the extra complexity" (the 
"simplicity principle").

The only way I can still see this solved without a fork is if 1.0 is
completely backwards compatible. (But I am not holding my breath.)

I can imagine that this compatibility is possible, but last time I 
asked for these (feels like centuries ago after this mess) my only 
answer was that I should propose a concrete alternative.


I did not like that. It was like saying "shut up or do it yourself".


My argument made sense. It is obviously possible by having some more 
trouble with the parser. And the 0.91 -> 1.0 converter seems to point
in the direction of this possibility too.

However:
 - I have other priorities than becoming a RSS author;
 - I do not have to teach XML to the spec authors. I am sure they have
   more experience with it than poor me. (Although I do not get lost 
   with namespaces.).

If you (the RSS 1.0 guys) are doing a new version, you should do it 
right - which includes respecting the simplicity and backwards 
compatibility principles - or just FORK it.

What you shouldn't do is being so deaf to critics. You have to listen
to people in the "spec business".

(Should I mention the "those issues were considered" answer I got too?)


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 21:26
>
> A few of us on the rss-dev list have been proposing a look at an
> RDF-syntax-less version of RSS 1.0, which would effectively make RSS
> 1.0 look more like RSS 0.91 than RSS 0.9.
> 
> Given what you've said, what would yours and others opinion be on an
> RSS 1.0 based on 0.91 with only new extensions going into namespaces?
> 
>   -- Ken