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

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

Mark Kennedy <markk@fool.com> writes:

> 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.

A few of us on the rss-dev list have been proposing a look at an
RDF-syntax-less version of RSS 1.0, which would effectively make RSS
1.0 look more like RSS 0.91 than RSS 0.9.

Given what you've said, what would yours and others opinion be on an
RSS 1.0 based on 0.91 with only new extensions going into namespaces?

  -- Ken