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

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

My "backwards compatibility" is that they just look the same when you
want to do the same.

What about the namespaces? Are they avoided now for basic stuff?
(Many basic parsers would be messed up by namespaces.)


Have fun,
Paulo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@swartzfam.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 02:13
> To: syndication@egroups.com
> Subject: [syndication] Re: A message to the lurkers on the list
> 
> 
> Paulo Gaspar <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de> wrote:
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> While I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by 
> backwards-compatible,
> backwards-compatibility is a definite goal of 1.0. (For reference, the
> definition we use is that an RSS 0.9 parser than ignores extra 
> elements and
> attributes should be able to read 1.0 files.)
> 
> Could you clarify your definition of backwards compatibility?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com
> 
> 
> 
>