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

[Mark Kennedy <markk@fool.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:43 PM
>To: syndication@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [syndication] A message to the lurkers on the list
>
>
>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".

To me, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do. It seems to me that
RSS0.91 already has the RSS name, for RSS1.0 to take a different name
wouldn't seem to be much of a concession. A rose by any other name...

>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.

I agree that adding new elements doesn't add new complexity as long as the
elements are optional. I'm trying to determine the real difference between
adding elements to a spec on an ad hoc basis and adding elements to a spec
as a group, i.e. with the 1.0 spec's modules. One part of me thinks that
adding elements as they are needed makes a format flexible and responsive,
but another part thinks that opens up the possibility of a deluge of
elements that serve very narrow interests. But again, if all elements are
optional, it doesn't matter too much, I suppose. I guess in the end, when I
develop a feed using any spec, I'll need to do my best to use all of the
elements/modules that I possibly can that may be applicable to the content
I'm describing/delivering.

>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.

Yeah, I'd love to have the <ticker> element be an official part of some
spec. It'd cure my guilt for "embracing and extending" the official spec ;-)
I guess I never really lobbied for it because I thought it was too narrow a
need that most users wouldn't have use for. Do you think there would be any
risk of there being too many narrowly-focused elements in a spec that
upgrades incrementally? I don't know if that's a valid concern or not.

I'm glad to be part of this conversation again, and I wish I'd kept up with
it all along. Hope my input now is seen as helpful or adding to the group.

MK

>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>