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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: malexander@acm.org [mailto:malexander@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 04:52
> 
> RSS 1.0 has lost it. Plain and simple.  The new tag allows the spec
> to kind of almost have it for a single level of depth.  But the
> idea of specific link tags to define a level of hierarchy will
> simply fail when the data has multiple levels of Hierarchy.
> The data I am looking at has about 8 levels of Hierarchy.
> It can easily be encoded in RSS 0.91,  but will fail completely
> with RSS 1.0.
>
> If this tag structure is required to support RDF, then maybe the
> RDF support should be re-considered.

Agreed. Simplicity gone again.

> I dont have any issues with
> the use of Namespaces.  Namespaces are an ugly way to define a set
> of specific tags, but quite honestly I cannot think of a way to
> do a similar feature that would be any less ugly.  I therefore feel
> that the uglyness is a necessary evil.

Namespaces aren't even so ugly and are usefull in many situations.

However, I use them also when they are not necessary?


Have fun,
Paulo