Re: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

Paulo and Ken:

It would have been great if there were a collegial and professional working
group for RSS, but for a variety of reasons, there wasn't. I absolutely
would not volunteer to lead such a group, more than anything I would like to
see RSS left alone, and not fought over.

The first step is for the RSS 1.0 group to get on solid ground with a new
name, not to ride on RSS's reputation, much as SOAP used a different name
for XML-RPC.

Then at some point if it was meant to be, more work can be done on RSS. Ken
keeps saying I want to own RSS, this is not true. More than anything at this
point I want RSS to be left to be what it is.

At one point I felt it would be OK if they called it RSS 1.0, but now I see
clearly that can not work because RSS is much larger than I thought it was.
At some point the fighting will stop, because what they're trying to do
won't work. Naming matters. If I tried to name my new product Radio UserLand
(I am) some people would think it's only useful for playing music. We're
seriously contemplating changing its name (again) so its purpose is clearer.
Even when there's no contention, sometimes it's necessary to change the name
of something because the old name isn't working.

Coming up with a new name for RSS 1.0 will be a good exercise for the
working group, because it will force the question of what it is used for.
This question needs to be addressed if it is to have utility.

Dave




----- Original Message -----
From: "Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92


> Ken has point there. A WG for 0.9x should take a step forward.
>
> Dave Winer has been collecting suggestions for 0.92 so...
>
> Paulo
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 18:55
> >
> > All I'm saying there is that had that there been a formal working
> > group composed of even simply the posting members of the time who had
> > a known contribution to RSS, the results would be much clearer now.
> >
> > The cycle is being repeated again, by the way.  The lack of a clear
> > working group and/or process for RSS 0.91+ is stalling those efforts
> > (not interference, as suggested).  Proposals, discussion, and
> > resolutions should happen relatively quickly.  Yet without a known
> > process, people are trying to suggest or propose things, are being
> > told their not doing it right (what?!), it's not clear who can make
> > things official, and it's certainly not clear what or whose act needs
> > to be accomplished to actually get things adopted.
> >
> >   -- Ken
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>