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

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com> writes:

> > RSS is in a lot of ways a "populist" spec. This is a point that's
> > been made more eloquently before by others, so I won't belabor it
> > here, except to say that I think the decision to base RSS 1.0 on
> > version 0.9 instead of 0.91 feels kind of "ivory tower" to me.
> 
> 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, I'm sure
> the RSS-DEV group would adopt it.

Not necessarily, and not that I would expect them too anyway.

In RSS1.0 core, the rdf bits 'rdf:about', 'rdf:resource', and
'rdf:RDF' could easily have been managed without explicit use of RDF
bits, through the use of, say, XSL transforms from RSS elements that
meant the same things (like <link>).  They're there because there's no
reason _not_ to use them (incremental extra effort to support
namespaces aside).

Outside of RSS1.0 core (but lurking in section 7. Examples, 3rd
example) is the implication that RDF statements are allowed as the
values of some properties (see usage of <dc:subject> in that 3rd
example).  This usage is problematic, and no one has yet to explain
how RSS tools should even begin supporting that, or if that was really
intentional or just a brainfart on someone's part.

BTW, XML is ivory tower, if we're gonna be painting towers anywhere.

  -- Ken