RE: [syndication] Thoughts, questions, and issues.

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eisen@eisen.wwind.com [mailto:eisen@eisen.wwind.com]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Eisenzopf
>
> > It seems that the only difference is that XML standards are
> getting complex
> > on a piece-by-piece basis instead of all-at-once.
> >
> This is the result of the evolution based on user requirements
> (usually).
>

It is still a simplicity versus completeness problem: what problems you
solve with the standard versus which ones you leave to be solved by the
users trough "extensibility".


> > That is happening with:
> >  - the XML "core" standards (I can not get enthusiastic about stuff like
> >    the Infoset);
> >  - the Syndication related standards;
> >  - SOAP.
> >
> I agree to some degree, but some solutions are complex because
> they solve complex problems.

Same as above, isn't it?


> > XML main advantage over SGML was supposed to be simplicity...
> or did I get
> > it wrong?
> >
> One of the advantages certainly. But XML was also a sneaky way to
> get people to adopt SGML.

Aha!!!
That is the answer I was afraid to get.
=:o)


> > Why not build XML standards as simple cores that allow for extensibility
> > instead of trying to cover all the possible and impossible
> functionalities?
> >
> Have you read the spec? ....

I was not talking about RSS (yes, I took a look). I like RSS as it is.
What I am is afraid of some recommendations that pop from time to time at
replacing RSS by a moster-does-it-all alternative.


> > Namespaces can be convenient if one wants to build extensions... but why
> > not making namespace use optional - only for those cases?
> >
> Namespace use is optional (except for the default namespace).
> It's used when extending the default namespace.

Same as above.

Actually, this is misplaced and as to do with stuff that goes on in (other)
XML related mailing lists. To make it short, some people are very concerned
with namespaces being another example of unnecessary complexity added to
XML.

I am not that radical. I just thing they can be misused by being overused.


> Well, RSS 1.0 is only a proposal, so suggestions are welcome. How
> would you have solved the problem? What can we do to make it
> simpler?
>
> > Sorry if I go partially out of topic, but this obsession with
> completeness
> > (at the cost of simplicity) that menaces RSS is a general trend.
> >
> I agree, sorta. But whose obsession with completeness are you
> referring to? ...

As above. Notice that we are talking in the context of syndication and not
only in the context of RSS alone.

I think that a discipline of simplicity (the famous KISS principle) is being
applied at RSS and I respect and admire that. I like RSS as it is and I am
only afraid it is replaced by something else.

Going back to something on your posting:
> RSS 1.0 was the result of user feedback and the request for extensibility
> while maintaining simplicity.

I wish SOAP had done such a good job.
(Considering marshalling versus simplicity demands, maybe there should be 2
levels of SOAP.)


Keep the good work... and have fun in the process,

Paulo Gaspar