Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Ian Graham <ian.graham@utoronto.ca> wrote:

> To my mind the goal
> should be a design such that, if you don't know the namespace-extended
> portions, you can still usably process the 'core' RSS (or whatever) data
> in the message - and, moreover, that the core should be really obvious
> and simple to use/understand.

I think this was always the idea -- the RSS core allows description of a
"channel" with multiple "items" each of which have a "link". That's all it
says, but all RSS files should have that. You can add whatever you want on
top of that, but at least that will tie them all together.

> In this sense, I see work on understanding the correct 'modules' to build
> [as in http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/] as something that should happen
> before RSS is redrafted....

I don't quite understand. As I see it, modules are something that allow
people to extend onto RSS, not something that fits into the core. I think
your proposals would be great for an RSS 2, something where we can start
fresh and throw away the Netscape baggage.

Does this make sense?

-- 
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan