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

[Mark Kennedy <markk@fool.com>]

Ken:

I'm not actually opposed to RDF syntax or namespaces, I can see the purposes
they can serve. I do think that eliminating RDF syntax will wipe away the
veneer of complexity somewhat for a newcomer, as you mentioned in your
post[1].

I didn't see in the archives exactly what was proposed as far as as an
"RDF-syntax-less version of RSS 1.0", but if you mean something that was
backward-compatible with RSS0.91, I think that would be a good thing. If you
could point me to the thread(s) that discuss that, I'd love to take a look
and give a more informed opinion.

However, it doesn't sound like a proposal like that would solve the problem
about the RSS name. My understanding is that old-school RSS folks don't want
to have to deal with namespaces at all, now or in the future, whereas the
1.0 folks are pushing for namespaces and RDF syntax to beef up the spec and
make for more-organized scalability as new elements are added. I think both
make sense in some ways. Without sounding condecending, I see RSS1.0 as "RSS
Pro" and RSS0.91 as just standard RSS. I won't call it "RSS Lite" because a)
it sounds condecending, and b) I think a "lite" version is generally a
minimized version of the original, and that's clearly not the case here. In
my mind, both frameworks have relevance. I'd probably use 0.91 in some
cases, and 1.0 in others, depending on the partner, etc.

I don't know the solution to that problem, really. Has a fork/name-change
been ruled out? That just seems to me to be the easiest solution that allows
both formats to move forward in their own way. IMHO, two options (one
simple, one more robust) is still better than the n varieties that I deal
with now :-) And with two options out there, eventually I'd imagine one
would win out in the marketplace.

MK

[1] http://www.egroups.com/message/rss-dev/748


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:26 PM
>To: syndication@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [syndication] A message to the lurkers on the list
>
>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