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

[Rael Dornfest <rael@oreilly.com>]

I think it makes a lot of sense to keep the discussion of the overarching
concepts of syndication here rather than possibly fragmenting the
conversation.  The only reason I created an RSS-DEV was (as witnessed
by Ian's ideas) this list is bigger than specific implementation specs.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> Ian Graham <ian.graham@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, of course ;-)  I think it's that I want to do something more than
> > the RSS 1.0 draft was intended to accomplish.
> 
> I agree, I'd love to see your proposals be adopted as RSS 2.0, or some such.
> RSS 1.0 is just that -- 1.0, it's not attempting to rethink RSS, merely add
> some extensibility to the 0.9 drafts. I'm very interested in thinking
> through these issues and would love to see your write-up.
> 
> Perhaps we should create another list for work on this (syndication-wg?) or
> would it be OK with everyone if we kept the discussion here?
> 
> You can vote at:
> 
> http://www.egroups.com/surveys/syndication?id=282206
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
>         Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
> <http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
>   <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Rael

------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rael Dornfest                  rael@oreilly.com
  Maven,                         http://www.oreillynet.com/~rael
  The O'Reilly Network           http://meerkat.oreillynet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------