Re: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

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

"Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de> writes:

> 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 "-"?

No, they have either abstained or not noted an opinion.

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

He has yet to note an opinion in response to either that post or the
list.

>  - 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?

Yes, that's a seperate argument.

>  - 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???

That list comes from messages on [syndication] from 6/22 (Rael's
namespace proposal in message #188) to 8/14 (the RSS 1.0 proposal in
message #372).  Showing the context during formation of the RSS 1.0
proposal.

>  - 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.)

"Simplicity" has never been determined.  Some think simplicity means
backwards compatibility.  Others think simplicity is a cleaner, more
regular design.  Some think decentralized extension is simpler than
centrally controlled extensions.  Some think adding many optional
elements to the core spec maintains simplicity.  Some think namespaces
are inherently complex while others do not.  Some think RDF syntax is
inherently complex while others do not.  Some think RDF modeling is
inherently complex, but I've yet to hear anyone claim it is not.  ;-)

A lot of people are making claims as to what they think everyone else
thinks is simple, and that's just plain unsubstantiable.  *I* would
still rather see user testing.

But again, that data was meant to determine the context within which
the RSS 1.0p authors chose to make a proposal for what 1.0 should be.
The whole "who owns the name" or "which name implies what" thing came
up after that, and those too are seperate arguments.

>  - 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've yet to finalize the larger data yet, but my informal tally is
that there are more *individuals* (not quantity of posts, as a few
have suggested) who favor RSS plus RDF or NS than there are who favor
not using either.  There are still many people who also have not
stated any preference and are still in "wait and see" mode.

> 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.

We all have trouble tracking down every single point and making sure
there is a followup to it and closure.  When we're all flinging things
about in circles, it's worse.  RSSWhy's was created to help track
issues, but I most surely can't do it all myself.  What helps is if
people make concise, clear, individual points, and don't ramble.  I
would like to come to closure on all of this, if possible.

> 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?

No, it's not that crystal clear.

When a project goes from 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 to 4.0 it's a flow.  Who
governs that flow?  The project owners do.  In the RSS case, who all
the project owners were is unclear.

Let's, just for a second, consider that "a majority" of the project
owners are happily doing the 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 flow, and a few of the
project owners decides they don't want to go from 2.0 to 3.0 the way
that the rest do.  Who's to say that the minority owners get to decide
that it's the majority that must fork, and not the minority owners who
must fork?

The minority can easily say that their plan for building on 2.0 makes
so much more sense, or is much better, or will make more money, or is
simpler, or more in line with the current design, but that doesn't
change the fact that they are in the minority.

The question of who were all the stakeholders in this case, and where
their opinion lies, is still not known with certainty.  The feeling I
get from this perspective, though, is that there is even a higher
percentage of stakeholders who are in favor of RSS plus either NS or
RDF, but I have no conclusive data for that either.

  -- Ken

> [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