Re: [syndication] New poll for syndication

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

Tristan Louis <tristan@dorsai.org> writes:

> At 11:23 AM 10/18/00 -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> >Here's another proposal: Let's all share the name, and have two
> >deliverables.
> >
> >Let both our groups go to 1.0 together.
> 
> Question: How do you avoid confusion in the marketplace if that
> happens.  Let's look forward a few month and ask the question "What
> is RSS 1.0?" One group would say it's an RDF-based system for
> syndication, while the other would say it's a quick and easy way to
> do syndication. The formats would be different, the DTDs would be
> different. Why should they be named the same.  Essentially, keeping
> the same name is akin to saying that every flavor of Unix should be
> named Unix. As a result, there would be much confusion between HPUX,
> AIX, Solaris, and Linux. By going with a different name for one of
> them, we create an easy way out of this problem.

Both groups still share the same basic RSS goals, they differ only in
mechanics.  The confusion in the marketplace will be deciding which
chapter of the book to read first, because every book will be
describing both.

As Andy Powell wrote[1], RSS (both flavors) have <channel> and
<item>s, and there's no getting away from that, and it appears like
it'll stay that way for a long time.  They do the same exact thing in
slightly different ways.

> >Many people have posted that they see benefit to the RDF+NS approach,
> >while at the same time would like to continue with a simple approach.
> >
> >The ownership of the name may never be resolved, but all seem to have
> >the same general idea of what "RSS" is, regardless of the mechanics.
> 
> But couldn't we resolve it easily by polling and then deciding to
> move on with it?

Just as Dave Winer feels it unfair for the name to be stolen from the
RSS stakeholders who didn't agree with RDF or NS (at least that was
done by other RSS stakeholders), how should the RSS 1.0 folks feel to
have the name stripped from them?

Who are we to be deciding that?  How many people who have voted have
actually contributed to RSS development, promotion, and usage,
particularly from before this snafu began?  I agree with Dave[2] on
this one, you can't just poll the general public on what to demand
other people do.

> >All tools will process both RSS0.91+ and RDF+NS RSS files (either
> >explicitly, with RDF+NS, or by being RSS0.9 compatible and ignoring
> >namespaced elements).
> 
> Can you guarantee that? I know I can't. I can't say that Netscape
> will support both RSS format or someone else will. Not all tool will
> support the same thing.

RSS1.0 has been tested and found to be backward compatible with all
tools that support current RSS formats.  There's already evidence that
most tools will continue to support both forks/branches of development
in their enhanced forms.  Since both are so similar, really, and are
intended to fulfill the same purpose, the only reason one would choose
to develop a tool that does not support both would be ignorance or
spite.

By having both specs come from apparently the same effective source (a
shared project with seperate focus groups), it would definitely not be
through ignorance.

> >Both groups are receiving similar requests for enhancements at this
> >time (basic enhancements of a few tags).
> >
> >I am *not* proposing that we merge working groups, I think that would
> >force a strained relationship.  I do recommend a working group be
> >formed to foster non-RDF+NS RSS forward movement.
> 
> But what would you call it? The non-RDF+NS RSS WG? 

After we have agreement in principle, then each group decides their
own branch name, possibly like I suggested in [3].

> And what happens if, further down the road some tools for RDF become
> easy enough to use that the lighter version evolves back into an
> RDF+NS version?

Then an actual merge would simply be a proposal by both groups to
merge.  Much simpler than having two fully opposed groups.

  -- Ken

[1] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/790>
[2] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/807>
[3] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/819>