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

[Jonathan Eisenzopf <eisen@pobox.com>]

zac wrote:
> 
> Jonathan Eisenzopf wrote:
> 
> > As more tutorials and materials surface on
> > the RSS 1.0 proposal, I think that both writers and programmers
> > will begin to appreciate the simplicity and extensibility.
> 
> I think simplicity just "is". If you need to appreciate something first then
> it isn't simple.
> 
> This isn't meant as a criticism mind you, just an observation.
> 
I don't think that's true. I believe the spec we released may
look harder than it is, because we had to cover some technical
details for programmers. I think a one page tutorial for writers
will make it clearer.

> > XMLNews - http://www.xmlnews.org
> > News Industry Text Format (NITF) XML - http://www.nitf.org
> > NewsML - http://www.iptc.org/NMLIntro.htm
> > DocBook - http://www.docbook.org
> 
> I'm not sure if Docbook is a good comparative example. It needs a higher
> level of complexity than most "news" formats would.
> 
Hmm, I disagree. While it's not used for news stories as much as
the others, it is well used for articles and books.

> > The above are writing formats for text documents. XMLNews Meta is
> > similar to RSS. It also contains a format to markup the full
> > story. These formats are for writers, but I suspect that writers
> > are using tools like WordPerfect or an XML editor to do the
> > actual writing.
> 
> Or probably they have an export function that takes their style tags and
> resaves them as XML tagged text. This would be especially easy in
> WordPerfect.
> 
There's no reason we can't do the same. But you didn't address
the original issue. Do you consider the above formats easier in
comparison to RSS? The reason I'm asking is that when you say RSS
1.0 is not simple, my question is, in comparison to what?

-- 
Jonathan Eisenzopf    |  http://motherofperl.com    
eisen@pobox.com       |  http://perlxml.com
Perl Hacker           |  http://dc.pm.org