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

[Gary Teter <bigdog@bulldogbeach.com>]

on 8/21/00 3:56 PM, Aaron Swartz at aswartz@swartzfam.com wrote:

> Gary Teter <bigdog@bulldogbeach.com> wrote:
> 
>> What doesn't make sense is why the spec was based on 0.9 instead of 0.91.
> 
>> From the spec:
> 
> RDF allows for representation of rich metadata relationships beyond what is
> possible with earlier flat-structured RSS. The existing RDF base in RSS 0.9
> was the reason for choosing to build on the earlier version of RSS;
> attempting to re-introduce RDF into RSS version 0.91 proved a "putting the
> toothpaste back into the tube" proposition.

Right, I read that when the spec was introduced, and it made sense -- as
long as you accept the idea that RDF is a necessary component of syndicating
content. After thinking about it, from the perspective of a developer
writing aggregator and publisher software, I don't think it is.

I don't have anything against RDF, per se. I think it's a very cool idea
that could eventually find its place in the world, helping to tie everything
together in one giant tasty casserole. But here I'm concerned about
syndication, and I don't see the specific advantage of RDF over simple
namespaces for syndication.

Having said that, of course if RSS 1.0 is widely adopted in its current
form, I'll have to support it, just like I support moreover and iSyndicate's
proprietary formats over their RSS feeds because they are more expressive.

>> The vast majority of RSS sources are in 0.91, not 0.9. Honestly, this part I
>> don't understand at all, unless I put on my "geek hat" and realize that the
>> 0.9 spec was in some ways cleaner than the 0.91 spec.
> 
> It doesn't matter what version the sources are in, it matters what version
> the aggregators read.

Wellll..... speaking as an aggregator of aggregators :-), I'll read whatever
I have to. What I'm way more concerned about is the sources -- the
excitement of RSS is those thousands of little feeds created by
god-knows-what kind of tools.

If I'm going to say, "We made this decision for backwards compatibility,"
I'd much prefer that I was thinking of the amount of effort involved in
converting to the new version, not some abstract idea of which version was
more useful for my goals.

<snip>

> It's not ivory tower, it's just necessity. If you can show a way to get the
> RDF data and everything else in 1.0 into RSS 0.91

Right there, that's the issue, nail on the head, bulls-eye. I am not
convinced that "everything else in 1.0" even needs to be there. Simply
saying "RDF is more expressive" doesn't convince me.

<snip>

>> (OK, I've chimed in enough without offering anything helpful, so here's a
>> suggestion: RSS 1.0 should be the same as RSS 0.91 except with a
>> quasi-standard set of namespaces. Those who want RDF can add it in "for
>> free", to paraphrase Ken. Oh yeah, and get rid of skipdays/skiphours. :-)
> 
> I'm not sure, but I think this'd be hard to do. Rael tried to do it, so
> perhaps he can comment here.

Well, heck. I'll see what I can do.


-- 
Gary Teter, Big Dog
Bulldog Beach Interactive http://www.bulldogbeach.com
There's always an excuse, and it usually involves coffee.