Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Paulo Gaspar <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de> wrote:

> Some of my doubts:
> - Why is the root element <rdf:RDF/> instead of <rss/> ?

RDF 1.0 is based on RDF 0.9, not 0.91, which had rdf:RDF as the root element
-- so it's there for backwards-compatibility.

> - Why those "rss091:" namespaces being used? Those elements make a lot
> of sense and "rss091:" suggests it is old rubbish.

Again, backwards-compatibility.

> - Why the "rdf:about" and "rdf:resource" attributes? They add no
> information in the sample. Is that a problem of the conversion tool?

These are for the benefit of RDF parsers and also to allow the RSS items to
be taken out of context and aggregated into other documents, etc.

> 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.

I hope my explanations follow that principle and also make sense. If
something doesn't make sense or seem right, comment on it!

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