RE: [syndication] Dear All

["Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>]

Dear Alis,

: From: alis@contentrelations.com [mailto:alis@contentrelations.com]

: Currently I personally favour the simplicity of the RSS 0.91+ route.
:
: I'm glad that RSS 1.0 exists.  Six months from now I may look at it
: again and think "actually I think I'd rather use this" or "I could
: use this for something else".
:
: I love choice.  I think it's great that there are different groups
: taking XML headline syndication in different directions.

I couldn't agree with you more, save one or two inversions ;-)

: I hate the fact that they are both called RSS, because that just
: makes no logical sense to anyone.

(Un)fortunately, it made/makes perfect sense to those involved in its
development.  But, yes, it does come at the expense of confusing the users.
I'm really hoping we can find a way to both use the name in some manner that
is complementary and provides connections for new folks to follow and the
hard core to build upon.

: Surveys seem to suggest that RSS 0.90/ 0.91 content is currently far
: more popular than RSS 1.0, therefore RSS 1.0 being the one to change
: seems a less disruptive route than the other way round.

While you're right that 0.9x wins the popularity contest as news headline
syndicator of choice, 1.0 is clearly breaking ground in various different
arenas, if not in number, in diversity of application.  When I hear the
numbers quoted all the time, I dance with discouragement until a note
arrives pointing me at another interesting use of what we've created.

: I realise that the name "RSS" has value to both groups, but this
: confusion is hurting everyone.

Agreed.

: Could RSS 1.0 changes its name to something else?
: Could the RSS 0.91+ group support RSS 1.0 in changing its name?

Could we find some way of sharing the name.  There has been the suggestion a
couple of times before that we take a page from XMLNews, consisting of two
complementary pieces, XMLNews-meta and XMLNews-story.

: Look at the RSS 0.92, 0.93 and you will see no mention of RSS 1.0.
: Look at the RSS 1.0 spec and you will see no mention of RSS 0.92,
: 0.93.

Again, you're right.  While I've always strived for balance in my
characterizations of RSS and its various flavours and usages, I failed in
carrying this over to the spec.  I initially had a History section which,
believe it or not, for reasons of balance, was taken out.  I've subsequently
put some of it into articles such as:

  http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/07/17/syndication/rss.html

I've already proposed such changes on RSS-DEV.

: That is a problem.  I want to see clear information everywhere.
:
: I want the RSS 1.0 spec to be called something else, tell me that it
: grew from RSS 0.90, tell me what it is about and also mention that
: RSS 0.91+ exists somewhere else.
:
: Likewise I'd like to see the RSS 0.93 spec say what it is about and
: mention that there is another format that shares some of its history,
: i.e. whatever RSS 1.0 is calling itself.
:
: This is my humble opinion.  If it's lousy it's because I'm confused,
: not because I mean to be unfair or offend anyone.  Educate me.  We
: should be organizing the best way forward for both sides, not flaming
: each other.

Opinions are always welcome, especially dissenting voices.  It's refreshing
to hear the voice of reason amidst the storm.

: Look at the example James Shaw has set.  He has kissed goodbye to his
: STORS format, embraced RSS and put up with all the recent confusion
: and flames on this list.  It's a credit to him that he hasn't left
: and is instead setting up the first ASP site to cover RSS.  If we
: could all take a leap out of his book, headline syndication would be
: a lot better.

I'm much impressed with James's work and hoping he can provide as much for
RSS as we might provide him -- perhaps more ;-)

All the best,

Rael