Re: [syndication] Feed List Format

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

Actually I didn't ask for more use cases, I asked Jeremy to fill in his use
case with some more detail.

I don't feel like writing the message again, it's all in a post on the Tech
weblog at Berkman.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/2003/10/14#a337

It's item #4.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [syndication] Feed List Format


> Danny Ayers wrote:
> >>>I nearly missed this thread, but coincidentally I'd expressed my
> >>opinion on
> >>>OPML this very morning in another mail, below. But first -
> >>>Re. "Since OPML is already supported by every single aggregator on this
> >>>particular planet..." - not for the purpose being specified.
> >>
> >>The amount of
> >>>work needed to tool up for the new job would be the same if you
> >>use OPML or
> >>>a completely new XML syntax.
> >>
> >>Huh? OPML is used for *exactly* the purpose specified. Passing lists of
> >>feed urls around.
> >
> > Not in the form described, otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
>
> Two ways to proceed:
>
> Design-to-fit: pick an XML format, and then reject anything which does
> not match this criteria.  This is not as crazy an approach as it sounds.
>   But in any case, if you go this route, then certainly OPML is a
candidate.
>
> Actually figure out what we want, before we decide how to implement it.
>   This sounds better in theory, but often leads to paralysis by
> analysis.  If we go this way, the right next step is exactly what Dave
> Winer previously suggested: more use cases.  The end result may end up
> being OPML.  It may not.  If we go this route, such a decision is
premature.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>