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

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Tristan Louis <tristan@dorsai.org> writes:

> At 01:34 PM 10/17/00 -0400, you wrote:

> >So, when I first got wind of the 1.0 spec and it's ability to
> >incorporate different modules for specialized needs, I was
> >thrilled. I was (and still am) interested in working with folks to
> >develop a module that would include elements that were important
> >for syndicating financial news. However, as the battle over the RSS
> >name and the relative merits of namespaces and RDF syntax began to
> >flare, I decided to take a "wait and see" approach to see what
> >filtered out, especially since I saw the merits of both sides of
> >most arguments. I first used RSS because it was so easy to use and
> >develop and I'm convinced that that is the reason it's become as
> >widespread as it is, but I also see the benefits of namespaces and
> >modularity as outlined in 1.0.
> >
> >Finally, to make matters more interesting, I'm also interested in a
> >standard mechanism for syndicating entire articles, not just
> >headlines, descriptions and other meta data. For this reason, the
> >proposed content module has piqued my interest.
> 
> I think this is where the community seems to be split. Some people
> believe that RSS should be very simple and easy to use and others
> want to turn it into an industrial strength complete syndication
> system. I personally believe that there is room for both. On the one
> hand, you could have a light and simple version that would be for
> summaries only (which, I think, might be renamed something along the
> lines of Really Light Syndication) and for articles or much more
> complicated transactions, we would have an RSS 1.0 or beyond
> version.
> 
> RSS .91 is great but we can probably all agree that there are some
> extra things we'd like to see in it (I've already listed mine)
> without adding much complexity to it.

Maybe this is a resolution to the problem: again, most are agreeing on
the general goals, it's just the mechanics that differ.  Why not have
one RSS with two branches.  We already know that most tools will need
to support both formats anyway, we should recognize that.

> Having tried both, I've found that 1.0 adds complexity to the feed
> but I couldn't figure what new features it added. As a result, I
> reverted to .91 on my feeds. I'm still trying to understand the
> advantages of going to RDF.  People tell me that it will be great in
> the future but what I want to know is what are the advantages now. I
> know that in the future we'll have smart agents surfing the sites,
> etc.. etc... but I'm more concerned about today than the future
> right now.