[no subject]

And it's a much easier story to pass on than the competition based on
version numbers. Competition is good in this space, but not this kind of
confusing competition. After the split there will be three names on the
ladder. At first RSS will be topmost, but then one or the other will be the
"new" one. The best thing that could happen in this space. Then there would
be some press reports, and perhaps we could clean up some of the mess in
other areas, like WAP or whatever.

It's time for us all to leave the nest and be kind to RSS. You can't leave
home with one foot in the house and the other on the street.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: [syndication] NameSplitting


> Howdy,
>
> : I'm really encouraged by what's happening here.
>
> All in all, it's been a good day :-)
>
> : Dave, I like your proposal, but one thing came to mind on the first
> : reading -
> :
> : RSS 0.9x and RSS 1.0 are different formats, yes, but they are
> : related; they have an intertwined history, and a common purpose -
> : i.e., people who use syndication will know about both if they do a
> : bit of homework, and will more than likely work with both eventually.
> :
> : More to the point, Syndication as a whole is still catching on. I've
> : been asking a lot of content providers to make their wares available
> : in RSS lately, and by far the most common response is, "what?"
>
> I hear that alot too.  It's rather easy, though, to get beyond that and
have
> them understand why on earth they'd want to do such a thing.  Then,
though,
> you get into the "So, what's with all the RSS's?" and things get ugly
again.
> It'd sure be nice to bring that down to one rather than two hurdles to
> getting the data flowing.
>
> : If we change names away from RSS, we loose what little momentum we
> : have. If we change the names so that they are fundamentally
> : different, people don't link them in their minds, and they become
> : competing efforts in the user space, not just the developer space.
> :
> : So, a thought - what about keeping the RSS as the root of their
> : names, but moving away from competing version numbers, which gives
> : people a feeling that the RDF version is the latest-greatest, rather
> : than an option?
> :
> : e.g.,
> :
> : RSS 0.91 -> RSS Simple
> : RSS 1.0 -> RSS Semantic
> :
> : Each of those can have their own versioning system for future
> : development.
>
> A la XMLNews (XMLNews-meta, XMLNews-story).
>
> I have to say that if there were a name change, my vote would be cast for
> just such a recognition of common lineage, the split, and peaceful
> coexistence with bridges in-between for those who wish to work with both
or
> move from one to the other (both on the development and user fronts).
>
> : This would allow both of them to benefit from a single RSS
> : evangelization effort. Basically, we're telling the world that yes,
> : we can play together.
>
> We've seen the kind of awareness, ruckus, and hard work we can do apart,
> it'd be amazing to see what we could accomplish together.
>
> : I think this was somewhat discussed a long time ago, but I'd like to
> : re-examine it in this atmosphere. Feel free to shoot it down - just
> : wanted to get it out there.
>
> If a bilateral name change is in the cards, this would be the one I'd
> support.
>
> Rael
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>