RE: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

In the message linked by:
> [1] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/696>

Ken writes:

> I've taken the liberty of generating a list of all of the participants
> of [syndication] from the time of the first mention of a namespace
> proposal (6/22) up until the announcement of the RSS 1.0 proposal
> (8/14) and marking it with the authors of the RSS 1.0 proposal (*) and
> those I know personally to be in favor of namespaces and/or RDF (+):
> 
> <http://rsswhys.weblogger.com/discuss/msgReader$25>
> 
> The importance of this collection of data is to find consensus on the
> *technical* direction of RSS.

Now, in the list presented at:
  <http://rsswhys.weblogger.com/discuss/msgReader$25>

I miss the "-" signs (marking "Those opposed to either of NS or RDF in 
RSS"). 


Some questions:
 - Are all the unmarked names considered "-"?

 - If not, how come Dave Winer has no mark being him a obvious "-"?

 - Besides, the question being posted in terms of "NS" and "RDF" goes
   a bit around the argument of "simplicity" against RSS 1.0, isn't it?

 - I am against an evolution of RSS 0.9x to the proposed RSS 1.0 
   because of its complexity (although I would like to see a fork).
   Without going trough all the messages in the list, at least Lynn 
   Siprelle was also for a simpler RSS [1]. Why aren't our names in your 
   list???

 - Besides, there were a lot of other people proposing a 0.92 evolution
   and defending simplicity. Are all of them in the list too? They also
   seem to be against the proposed RSS 1.0 evolution isn't it? 
   (Although maybe many of them would like to see a fork.)

 - Besides all these people that prefer the 0.92 way, the answer to the
   pool [2] where the pulse was taken was not very relevant with just
   16 answers for such important issue - there were 37 votes for the
   "what does your aggregator read" pool [3]. Maybe not so much people 
   voted out of being confused with the issue. Maybe even because the
   FORK option was not mentioned. How come, after all these issues, do 
   you perceive a general consensus around RSS 1.0???


I really have a trouble with the deafness both Ken and Dave display 
about the fact that there are a lot of defenders on the other side...
...for BOTH sides.

Forking is the only thing that makes sense. And the RSS 0.92 line is
the one which spirit is closer to the 0.91 version.

That way, the side that should change name in order to create the less
possible disruption is obvious isn't it?

Do I have to spell it?


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar



[1] http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/497
    Lynn wanted more functionality without the complexity (RSS 0.92?).

[2] http://www.egroups.com/surveys/syndication?id=320021

[3] http://www.egroups.com/surveys/syndication?id=288493

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 18:21
> 
> 
> If after reading the archives you've come to a different conclusion
> about the pulse (general consensus) of the group than I did, let's
> take a look at the messages that weigh in for that side of the
> conclusion.
> 
>   -- Ken
> 
> [1] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/696>
> [2] <http://www.egroups.com/messages/syndication/188>
> [3] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/676>
> [4] <http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/696>
> [5] <http://rsswhys.weblogger.com/discuss/msgReader$25>
> 
> 
>