Re: [syndication] A message to the lurkers on the list

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

Mark:

1. I too am interested in having the ability to add the full text of an
article to the RSSization.

2. The divorce I seek could be elegantly accomplished by choosing a
different name for "RSS 1.0".

3. Re complexity, adding more elements does not increase complexity in any
appreciable way as long as it's clear that all the elements are optional.
What does increase complexity is swapping in whole other cultures, which may
or may not be well-explained. If they are not well-explained, or add an
abstraction layer, you lose huge groups of potential supporters. If you try
to explain them you alienate the communities that support them. You can see
some of that in the confusion over RDF in the RSS-DEV archives. Even Dublin
Core is not as simple as it appears. That's the slippery slope issue,
tomorrow the RDF working group could change their mind and invalidate RSS.
Ooooops. Better to have something solid and well-known and able to navigate
in a need-drive way, without latching onto (imho) the lunacy and xenophobia
of the various working groups.

4. I've always felt that your ticker element was the canonical example of
why RSS should upgrade incrementally. Having the docs for such an element in
the baseline spec would give people ideas of the practicality of RSS. Like
the Dial Phone command in MORE 1.0, few if any used it, but when they saw it
there, it gave them an appreciation for the utility of the product. Further
such examples might make the format even richer.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kennedy" <markk@fool.com>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [syndication] A message to the lurkers on the list


> Hey all:
>
> I've been lurking on this list for quite some time, but not really able to
> dedicate the time and effort to follow all of the debate threads that have
> arisen in the past few months since RSS 1.0 was announced. I'd like to
> contribute more, however, even if it means just giving an opinion here or
> there or asking a question or two. Tristan's note just kind of gave me the
> push to be more involved (kind of like the way NPR is guilting me into
> becoming a member during this week's pledge drive ;-)
>
> So, here are some of my thoughts on Tristan's note and syndication in
> general:
>
> I've been developing syndication feeds for my company using RSS (0.9,
0.91)
> since I first caught wind of it on Scripting News. The thing that really
got
> me started with it was the fact that it was so easy to implement. As the
> spec moved from just headlines (0.9) to headlines and descriptions (0.91),
I
> was thrilled because that was something that many of the aggregators we
fed
> were interested in, thus it became more useful in a business sense.
However,
> there were always elements missing from 0.91 that were very important to
the
> syndication that we do. Specifically, I needed a way to associate a list
of
> company ticker symbols with each <item> in a feed. Since there was no
> standard way to do so, I created my own version of RSS0.91 that included
the
> <ticker> element, i.e. <ticker exchange="NASDAQ" symbol="MSFT" />.
> Internally I called this format RSS0.91fn, 'fn' for 'financial'. We've
been
> using this format both internally and externally and it's been working
well,
> but I always felt a little guilty because it didn't conform to any spec,
and
> I've been a firm believer in the holy grail of a syndication standard that
> would work well for both publishers and subscribers.
>
> So, when I first got wind of the 1.0 spec and it's ability to incorporate
> different modules for specialized needs, I was thrilled. I was (and still
> am) interested in working with folks to develop a module that would
include
> elements that were important for syndicating financial news. However, as
the
> battle over the RSS name and the relative merits of namespaces and RDF
> syntax began to flare, I decided to take a "wait and see" approach to see
> what filtered out, especially since I saw the merits of both sides of most
> arguments. I first used RSS because it was so easy to use and develop and
> I'm convinced that that is the reason it's become as widespread as it is,
> but I also see the benefits of namespaces and modularity as outlined in
1.0.
>
> Finally, to make matters more interesting, I'm also interested in a
standard
> mechanism for syndicating entire articles, not just headlines,
descriptions
> and other meta data. For this reason, the proposed content module has
piqued
> my interest.
>
> With that as background, I'll respond to some of Tristan's
> questions/subjects:
>
> >First, we need to come to term as to whether we want to move on to a
> >spec that would be different from the RSS 1.0 one. There still seems
> >to be some issues around that. According to the poll on that matter
> >(http://www.egroups.com/surveys/syndication?id=320021) a vast
> >majority want to move on to 1.0. However, that vast majority is 12
> >people out of 16 votes. On 239 members, there wasn't even a tenth to
> >make that decision!
>
> I am very interested in the extensible nature of the RSS 1.0 spec for the
> above cited reasons. However, I understand why some people would like to
> keep using an easy to understand RSS0.91-esque format. I'm sure that some
of
> our partners would choose to use a 1.0-esque feed, and others would like
> something a bit simpler. To date, I've only implemented one feed that used
> any RDF syntax or namespaces, and I found that the developers on the other
> end were less than enthused about the perceived complexity.
>
> >Second, if we do so, we then need to figure out whether we want to
> >still call it RSS (which could create some confusion in the
> >marketplace) or something else. The main reason behind this is to
> >clear up the air so that if that spec were to evolve, we can all
> >agree on it.
>
> It seems to me that the 1.0 spec is enough of a different beast that it
> should be called something else. From my perspective, it works differently
> (namespaces, modular, RDF syntax), takes a bit more effort to implement
> (from both sides, I'd think), but is more useful because of those things.
> Plus, there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to what "RSS" means. Rich
Site
> Summary? RDF Site Summary? My vote would be to find a new name.
>
> >Third, we would need to define what goes in and what does not. That's
> >a major piece of work. As part of this, we need to assess the
> >membership's view on complexity. Where do we draw the line. Some of
> >us are better versed at software development than others so the line
> >has to be drawn somewhere but without your consideration
>
> My take is that added functionality comes with the price of added
> complexity. The trick is to keep that ratio (func/complex) as high as
> possible, I guess.
>
> >Fourth, we might want to create an evangelism sub-group to convince
> >the big players in software (the usual suspects: Microsoft, Netscape,
> >Oracle, IBM, Sun, etc...) to integrate this in their software
> >offering. That group should also be involved in evangelizing to the
> >big boys of content (traditional media and large online content
> >players) about the benefits of RSS (or whatever we call the new spec)
> >and why they should support it.
>
> I'd be very interested in working to evangelize a good spec for
syndication.
> The biggest hassle in syndication still, IMHO, is that none of "The Big
> Boys" are using anything standard. While we offer RSS0.91 files, we have
> many, many feeds and delivery mechanisms that we have to deal with to get
> content and headlines out to various partners. Some use email for
delivery,
> some use tab-delimited files, some use their own internal XML formats,
etc.
> Depending on the partner, it either has to be done in their proprietary
way
> or it can't be done. I have been hearing more and more partners looking to
> go towards XML for their feeds, but I fear that unless there is a robust
XML
> application everyone can implement, every house will come up with whatever
> serves their needs and we'll be right back at the tower of Bable where we
> started. The only difference will be that everything will be well-formed
and
> can be run through a parser ;-)
>
> >Last but not least here: this is an open forum and we are trying to
> >define a standard. There are a few times in your internet career
> >where you get a chance to do so. Much like an election, some people
> >will gripe after a standard has been defined. However, it is my view
> >that your right to gripe is annuled if you do not get involved. In
> >other words, it's easy for people to stand aside, not make any
> >decision either way, and then complain about the results. While there
> >are some disagreements between the people who are exchanging emails
> >on this list and others (see the whole battle between the pro-RDF and
> >anti-RDF groups as a prime example), those people are trying to push
> >the standard in one way or another. If you don't get involved, then
> >you might end up with something you really don't like.
>
> A powerful point, and for me a great motivator. I'll do my best from here
on
> out to be a good citizen and contribute to the discussions. I agree to a
> great extent with what Dave Winer said today, though: things in RSS-land
are
> very confusing right now. That confusion in part has kept me on the
> sidelines. Part of my confusion can be reduced by me re-reading posts here
> and on RSS-DEV, but I do think that one quick way to reduce confusion is
to
> pick a new name for RSS 1.0.
>
> Delurked :-),
>
> MK
> --------------
> Mark Kennedy
> markk@fool.com
>
>
>