Re: [syndication] More thoughts...

[Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>]

Just curious... does anyone know if Netscape has a position about
this? AFAIK, they don't care, but have we confirmed that?



On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:55:57PM -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> More mail came in after this... don't think it will fly... ah, well.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:35:38PM -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > 
> > Well. That's a lot of messages in one evening.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think we're ready for a poll right yet. 
> > 
> > 
> > Question - 
> > 
> > How about 0.9x (all of them) keeps the RSS name, 1.0 goes to
> > RSS-Semantic?
> > 
> > This is a compromise. There is an argument that it will be confusing
> > to users, but no more than the difference between 0.9 and 0.91, I
> > think. It says that yes, the RDF tree came out of the same swamp, but
> > they're on a different track now. 0.9x arguably has the moral
> > advantage (to balance the half-name-change), as it is the root;
> > -semantic is a subclass, a special case, an anomoly, if you will.
> > 
> > RSS 0.9 might even be referred to as RSS-Semantic 0.9. Has a certain
> > symmetry to it.
> > 
> > Just putting it out there...
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mark Nottingham
> > http://www.mnot.net/
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/