RE: [syndication] RE: [RSS-DEV] RSS 1.0 Release Candidate 1 (DRAFT)

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 14:38
> 
> Steven Roussey <sroussey@network54.com> writes:
> 
> > > It is not an option to rename RSS 0.9x. People already
> > > call it RSS and I see no reason to suddenly make their
> > > statements ambiguous.
> > 
> > I agree. I have nothing to do with syndication format creation. We
> > just use them. No one here wants to deal with Netscape coming out
> > with a different RSS v1.0 some time in the future.
> 
> Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but this would affect *any* group
> intending to move forward with RSS, not specifically the RDF+NS
> branch, correct?

Only in the perspective of Netscape comming back at it.


> This would seem to imply that any group wishing to move forward with
> RSS should pick a new project name (plausibly based on the characters
> "RSS", of course ;-).

But there is the perspective of RDF+NS just being quite different from 
RSS 0.9x.

 
> This has been suggested before and, IIRC, been tentatively agreed to
> by *all* the original parties (Dave Winer included).

DW is not all RSS users.


> This is the "stronger form" of both versions picking a branch (or
> variant) name -- both groups pick a new full name, like RSS-Classic
> and XRSS.

I personaly like thos 2 names.
=:o)

 
> There has been only one perceived flaw in this approach, and it ain't
> technical, marketing (re. user confusion), or personal, but political:
> the RDF+NS group is organized and can move quickly to adopt, and move
> forward, with a new name but what assurances do they have that "the
> other group" (non-RDF+NS) will do the same when they get ready to move
> forward with a new spec?
>
> If an rss-dev WG vote on picking a new name, contingent on the
> non-RSS+NS group also picking a new name, would be the solution to
> this issue, just say the word.

That is going back to turf war arguments of "who owns the name".

Focus should be more on "what raises less problems to the users".


Have fun,
Paulo