Re: [syndication] Re: Total confusion in RSS-Land

[Rael Dornfest <rael@oreilly.com>]

Howdy Mark,

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 
> My .02 - 
> 
> Another reason it's hard to get something done with RSS is that there is a very
> poor sense of who "we" are. The Syndication list isn't meant to have
> deliverables like RSS; it's just a discussion forum where interested parties can
> talk and get an idea of what's happening in this space.
> 
> I participate in a number of standardization efforts, both public and private.
> Getting different companies as well as people to agree on something and then
> publicly endorse it is a very difficult thing. In my experience, ad hoc efforts
> and on-the-fly consortia don't get very far, because they're poorly defined and
> don't have well-considered proceedures for obtaining consensus or publishing the
> results of what they do.

Putting the content aside for a second, I think we have a nice experiment
in grassroots standardization happening on RSS-DEV with policies and
procedures that are actually quite decent. I ask you to take a gander if
you've not already done so[1].  Please understand that I'm in no way shoving 
this down anyone's throat; just hoped it might provide some interesting
grist for the mill.

> RSS seems to suffer from all of this. It is a prime example of an effort that
> needs some form of endorsed, well-considered standard; if there are conflicting
> efforts, it makes it much more difficult for any of them to succeed, as they
> drain energy from each other.

Agreed.

> Please consider this carefully, considering the history of RSS. I know that some
> will resist taking RSS to an established, public standards body, but IMHO it's
> the surest way to success - broad adoption. RSS is only really useful if I can
> go to my favorite Web sites and get a summary file from each to aggregate into a
> convenient interface.

Agreed.

> To me, then, that leaves two reasonable possibilities; the IETF or W3C. I'd lean
> towards the W3C; although you have to be a (paying) member, the fees are
> reasonable, and many people here are already there (outside experts can also be
> invited to participate, without incurring a fee). Additionally, this is W3C's
> traditional turf, being made up of mostly application-level interests
> (publishing, content, etc.). IETF, while more open, is much more technical,
> slower and would probably consider this out of scope.

Standards bodies rely upon the people involved to be productive, 
cooperative, and respectful.  Taking a mess to a standards body with the
hope that it'll be cleaned up by virtue of being given a home is, in my
opinion, rather optimistic.  Take a gander at the XML-DEV mailing list a
view into the efficacy of standards bodies[2].  (Not rendering an opinion
here, mind you, only a pointer.)

Not that I'm against optimism, mind you.  That's why I firmly believe its
possible for resolution in some form here.  Syndication and RSS-DEV have
on the main a wonderful group, representing a wide swath of the the RSS
user-base: theorists, implementors, end-users, et al.  There just needed
to be a little more organization in the beginning.

Rael

[1] http://www.egroups.com/files/rss-dev/RSS-DEV+Policies+and+Procedures
[2] http://www.egroups.com/list/xml-dev/

------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rael Dornfest                  rael@oreilly.com
  Maven,                         http://www.oreillynet.com/~rael
  The O'Reilly Network           http://meerkat.oreillynet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------