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

[Jonathan Eisenzopf <eisen@pobox.com>]

Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> 
> The more I read the less I understand why added complexity
> as to be pushed trough the throats of RSS users.
> 
> To be accepted by RDF tools?
Nope.

> How are the RSS 0.91 to 1.0 converters make things simpler?
>
It's simply a service. Just like 0.9 to 0.91 converters.
 
> Why must people making simple uses of RSS be forced to use
> converters and change home made tools (e.g. XSLT templates)
> to be 1.0 compatible when they get no added value from the
> added complexity?
>
Nobody is forcing anyone to use RSS 1.0 or to use a converter.
 
> Why shouldn't the RDF users that want to parse RSS data pay
> the complexity price and use the converters themselves?
> 
They certainly can if they like. 

> Is this supposed to force all RSS users into accepting RDF?
>
No. RDF was already part of the original 0.9 spec.
 
> Some people representative of the "simple RSS" user community
> already complained about this issues and I did not notice a
> reaction of serious acknowledgement from the new standard
> defenders. Only manifestations of fake sympathy.
> 
> Is fake "fake sympathy" a too strong expression?
>
We have seriously weighed these issues. That is why the spec is
simple, yet extensible.
 
> I should I call it when the reaction is a patronizing "yes, we
> are listening and we will consider that if it becomes
> necessary" but no intention of changing it pops up.
>
Hmmm. You aren't listening too well then. There's a mailing list
for RSS 1.0 where people are giving their input and forward
movement is being made. I dare to say we've been encouraging
feedback and suggestions.
 
> The only thing that is coming back to those users is a lot of
> "semantic"-semi-academic BS that they do not even want to deal
> with - they just want SIMPLE use, remember?
>
We are working hard to provide practical examples, tutorials, and
tools. You are being overly critical of a proposal that's been
out for not much longer than a week.
 
> Where are you getting lost?
>
Dunno, perhaps you can enlighten us?
 
> Is SIMPLE a lost notion for you?
>
I think it will be hard to argue that the RSS 1.0 proposal is not
simple.
 
> Again, why not putting the onus of complexity just on those
> that profit from it?
> 
We are doing exactly that. The core is simple. It's up to the
users to extend it and add complexity.

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