Re: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

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

I've made my point, over and over and over. I find this humiliating. My role
in this is that I authored a spec, merged it with Netscape's, promoted the
hell out of it, helped people get their channels going, built software
around it, opened our service list so others could build aggregators, all
before you had anything to do with it. You are in no position to say what's
relevant. I have no idea what you do or who you work for. I hope you
establish some standards so that someone can take you out of the loop and
say your pov is irrelevant, but I'm done arguing with you or this list. If
the grab is undone I might get in the loop on RSS in the future, but for now
I'm outta here. Dave



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken MacLeod" <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92


> "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> You wouldn't need to chair or drive the working group if you so
> desired, though I'm sure the community would definitely want to
> nominate you to be more than just a member.
>
> > 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.
>
> RSS 1.0p is just as much RSS as RSS 0.91 is.  Both are RSS.  Saying
> they are different does not make it so and belies the history of its
> development.  They will sit back-to-back in books, tools, and how-tos.
> No one has yet to propose anything different.
>
> SOAP's history is not relevant to this discussion since it was
> developed under entirely different circumstances.
>
> > 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.
>
> Since the other owners of RSS don't seem agreeable to letting go the
> name, then how about a simple "holding group" for RSS 0.91 that allows
> for the two groups to work amicably with the same name (different
> branches)?  Then if or when work is to be done on the RSS 0.91 branch,
> it will be there and waiting, both in fact as well as in the mindshare
> of users, developers, and shelf space.
>
> > 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 it fails, then it will fail.  Even if a name were as simple as
> xRSS, it will still be tied in user's perception with RSS, which is
> good because that is exactly what it is.
>
> > 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.
>
> What it is used for?  Are you kidding?  *Exactly* the same thing RSS
> has always been used for!
>
> RSS 1.0p is an evolutionary (not incremental, but not revolutionary)
> enhancement to RSS in response to the needs of the RSS community.
> Hence the reason for suggesting that we have far more in common than
> in any differences.
>
> That *some* believe that the enhancement is done "the wrong way" and
> "won't work" hasn't changed the goals of RSS (either fork or branch).
>
> Amazed.
>
>   -- Ken
>
>
>