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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 08:08
> 
> So, Aaron, because we disagree you get to make the rules?

Hi Dave,


Your statement (above) works both ways.

IMHO, Aaron even gave an example to illustrate why he thinks that way.
It seems to me that he is trying to reason over that. Not forcing.


Moreover:
 - On one hand I fail to see the technical difficulty of parsing both 
   versions, with and without namespaces;
 - On the other hand, I see advantages in many contexts when merging
   RSS with other XMLization.

Notice that I am not talking about any specific elements of the draft.
I am only talking about the two general ideas of:
 - Allowing to merge RSS data with other data;
 - Allowing the OPTIONAL use of namespaces.

If RSS data is EXTENDED without being amputated, I fail to see why a 
well built parser has to be much more complex to support that 
extensibility or the use of namespaces than to only support the basic
format:
 - Is it that complex to detect if the namespace is being used?
 - Is it that complex to ignore what is not RSS data?


Making a balance of simplicity, it seems that these general 
functionalities, IF WELL DEFINED can:
 - Make life much SIMPLER to many people that need it;
 - WITHOUT making it any harder on those that do not used them;
 - Without making RSS parser implementation much harder;
 - Promoting RSS extension instead of RSS replacement, while allowing
   the basic RSS data to be extracted from extended one.

It looks that life gets easier in general.


What am I missing here?
(I might be.)


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar