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

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

Mark Kennedy <markk@fool.com> writes:

> I didn't see in the archives exactly what was proposed as far as as
> an "RDF-syntax-less version of RSS 1.0", but if you mean something
> that was backward-compatible with RSS0.91, I think that would be a
> good thing. If you could point me to the thread(s) that discuss
> that, I'd love to take a look and give a more informed opinion.

It hasn't been formally proposed yet, so I'll let you know.

> However, it doesn't sound like a proposal like that would solve the
> problem about the RSS name. My understanding is that old-school RSS
> folks don't want to have to deal with namespaces at all, now or in
> the future, whereas the 1.0 folks are pushing for namespaces and RDF
> syntax to beef up the spec and make for more-organized scalability
> as new elements are added.

Who are the "old-school"?  The RSS 1.0 proposal has some of the
earliest and biggest names in RSS as authors.

Several of the authors of the RSS 1.0 proposal have just as much claim
to the name as anyone, that's one of the biggest issues no one's
talking about or considering.  It's not simply about design
philosophy.

> I don't know the solution to that problem, really. Has a
> fork/name-change been ruled out? That just seems to me to be the
> easiest solution that allows both formats to move forward in their
> own way.

Apparently, neither side can come to a majority decision on that one
within their own groups, and not having a formal group on one side
makes that side unclear.  There have been proposals for both groups to
pick a new name, for either group to pick a new name, or for neither
group to pick a new name (just have two branches).  One of the most
serious issues is if both groups choose to pick a new name (of which
one is not a formal group), who's to say the other will follow
through?

  -- Ken