RE: [syndication] Re: RFC: Clearing confusion for RSS, agreement for forward motion

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

Hi,

> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]

> I think the proposed roadmap was really clear.

It most definitely was, as were the responses to it.  I think we're
fundamentally very much in agreement.  The naming seems to be the primary
stumbling block.

> We're going around in loops here. View my proposed roadmap as a spec. See
> what it says.

I did, and responded in great detail, trying to be fair and clear all the
way through.

> I don't want to carry the RSS name forward. Leave it alone, stop trying to
> make it something that it's not.

This statement goes to the very heart of the conflict, Dave.  We keep
hearing the community on all sides pitching in on what RSS is and isn't.
Some agree with you and disagree with me.  Some vice-versa.  Still others
don't agree or disagree with either of us.  RSS has grown beyond fitting in
with your personal take on it -- and I'm not just talking about RSS 1.0.

> What it is is just fine.

Ad hoc extensions, overloading of elements, and RSS 0.92+ seem to suggest
otherwise.

> That's what I've been saying for over a year,
> but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

On the contrary, it's very much getting through -- always has.

Rael
Rael