Re: [syndication] Re: Forking, the name game, the politics of naming

[David King <david.king@commnav.com>]

I don't think it would be wise to steamroll this proposal through the
Syndication list.  Shouldn't we first resolve the naming issue for
RDF+NS RSS in RSS-DEV?  Seeing as how there have been a few posts
supporting a name change for RDF+NS RSS to xRSS in RSS-DEV, I don't
think it would be productive to push this proposal on the Syndication
folks.  Also, a poll on the subject is currently taking place in RSS-DEV
that hasn't even been completed.  Please don't jump the gun until there
is a consensus in RSS-DEV.

-David

Ken MacLeod wrote:
> 
> "Steve Agalloco" <spagalloco@lycos.com> writes:
> 
> > I think your idea is great.  I think we all agree on the
> > functionality (at least at some point we do).
> >
> > So how do we go about doing it?  Proposing a neutral body that
> > approves both implementations?  A group comprised of both working
> > groups to agree on functionality?
> 
> I don't believe any of that is necessary.  The non-RDF+NS group is
> looking for slow, incremental improvements.  I'm not suggesting that
> we choose to immediately, or necessarily ever, begin sharing identical
> functional improvements or release schedules.  That depends on any
> healing that might happen.  I do hope that we share meanings behind
> some tags (like <date> and company tags, for example).
> 
> The minimum necessary to make this work to avoid confusion is that we
> use the branch names when listing their current releases, like
> "Current versions: RSS Y 1.3; Z RSS 1.1.2"
> 
> > Does the non-RDF+NS group even have a working group?
> 
> I'll read that as "...even [need to] have...".
> 
> No, nor a defined process.  Somehow, though, we need a show of good
> faith that we are all willing to share the name.
> 
> The show of good faith by the RDF+NS group would be a vote to adopt a
> branch name if the non-RDF+NS group does the same.
> 
> I don't know, and can't speak to, what a show of good faith might be
> on the part of the non-RDF+NS group.  A non-RDF+NS RSS 1.0 spec with a
> branch name on it would clearly do it.  If a working group is formed,
> shows progress towards a spec, and also votes to adopt a branch name
> if the RDF+NS group does the same, that would be a show of good faith.
> 
> The timing of choosing a branch name is not critical, either.  A show
> of good faith on the part of the RDF+NS group would easily extend
> until the non-RDF+NS group released a spec or made some other show of
> good faith.  As it is at this point, both groups are going forward
> with the name "RSS" so we lose nothing in the wait.
> 
> It would be nice to hear from a few more people who think this would
> be an acceptable proposal.
> 
>   -- Ken