Re: [syndication] RSS 0.94

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

So who exactly is stopping you from commenting, in a threaded fashion or
otherwise.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Morbus Iff" <morbus@disobey.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] RSS 0.94


> >http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy
>
> Dave, that's all fine and good, and I *agree* with the mentality behind
it.
> But this is an RSS *specification* - specs live and thrive on threaded
> discussions and archiving, both for future back-reference, historical
> researching, and a single "place" for locating the work and thoughts put
> forth on it.
>
> All these "standard" discussion techniques are
> being put to pasture with your latest attempt.
>
>  - there is no threading, so people can't see
>    an evolutionary thought process, or narrow down
>    their interest to a single thought - instead,
>    they have to hunt around everywhere, reading
>    bloat that may not interest me (granted, bloat
>    happens on mailing lists too).
>
>  - there is no archiving, because we can't hope that
>    the users who participate understand the concepts
>    behind permaURLs, nor can we assume they have
>    the intelligence to keep their servers running
>    until the end of time (as per, say, a Yahoo
>    mailing list). We also can't depend on Alexa or
>    Google to archive the pages. In essence, when
>    Joe Bob winks off the net, there goes a piece
>    of spec history.
>
>  - there is no single place for locating the effort.
>    since the discussion is spread out against multiple
>    sites, historical researching and central repository
>    goes out the window. Instead, we have an omnipotent
>    librarian who controls the information archived by
>    linking to only that which he deems important.
>    Censorship, Revisionism, etc, what have you.
>
> The lack of the above is even more egregious because RSS is a standard
used
> by thousands and thousands of people. This is a standard and a
> specification, and it's vitally important. I can see losing the above
> benefits over something like a dissertation on female cartoon characters,
> but not on something that people will actually be using.
>
> On a more personal note: I can't participate. I'm sure you'll think I'm
> stopEnergy (or later, humble yourself by saying 'yes, let Morbus play'),
> but there is no way I can participate in this discussion or spec now.
Email
> is a crucial part of my daily process - joining mailing lists based on
> interests is right up there too. That's all gone now - I can't read or
> filter email based on the RSS v0.94 discussion. Instead, I have to go to
> one man (you), trust your integrity (which has always, in my view, been
> challenged), and read your links. This means that my online time will be
> increased (due to running around to bandwidth heavy websites as opposed to
> reading text-only email) - if I were in a foreign country, participating
> now means spending more money (due to per-minute dialup charges).
>
> There's so much more stuff I want to explain concerning how this is a bad
> approach, but your attempt at minimizing stopEnergy has become stopEnergy
> in itself - by removing the "tools" needed for a decent discussion
> (filtering, offline reading, threading, archival, etc.), you're
restricting
> a large portion of a knowledgeable audience who can't exert the extra
time.
>
> --
> Morbus Iff ( united we're bland )
> Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
> Tech: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 - articles and weblog
> icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>