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

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

Well, I am more interested in defending the principles of extensibility
and namespace use (WHERE/WHEN NECESSARY) that the draft itself.

I am far from knowing the draft well enough. And being a draft, I hope
we can twist it in all the right directions.


On this nice side by side, I see many changes which advantage I fail to
understand. Again, I think that namespaces should be used WHERE/WHEN
necessary and I already see too many in:
  http://my.theinfo.org/rss/newversion.xml

Some of my doubts:
 - Why is the root element <rdf:RDF/> instead of <rss/> ?
 - Why those "rss091:" namespaces being used? Those elements make a lot
   of sense and "rss091:" suggests it is old rubbish.
 - Why the "rdf:about" and "rdf:resource" attributes? They add no
   information in the sample. Is that a problem of the conversion tool?


Please avoid semantic/syntactic justifications. IMO is a more relevant
principle:
 - Only those that have the benefit of extra complexity should have to
   pay for it.


Have fun,
Paulo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 09:19
> To: syndication@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.
> 
> 
> Paulo, the force comes from the choice of the RSS 1.0 name. Doesn't leave
> much wiggle room. Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>