RE: [syndication] Wow, from total overload to total blackout...

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

I will not implement Syndication in my System before 2000 Q1. I just do not
have enough time and resources to become THAT involved - it is already hard
to justify the time I am spending with this issue.

Anyway, if RSS 1.0 keeps going in that direction forcing 0.9x away, I might
as well adopt ICE.

If there is no RSS 0.9x, ICE becomes the best option for me:
 - I work with Oracle tools and they plan to use ICE on iAS;
 - ICE did not grab the RSS name away;
 - I did not like the way RSS 1.0 was imposed.


Have fun,
Paulo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Ketzler [mailto:mketzler@bizslice.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 17:20
> To: syndication@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [syndication] Wow, from total overload to total blackout...
>
>
> I am not sure it is a debate given that RSS-DEV is applying some perverse
> combination of maritime law (they found the RSS standard
> abandoned) and the
> old possession being 9/10's of the law. Clearly they have no intention of
> doing what is obviously the "right thing". In-fact they are now demanding
> that the RSS .9x group show a token of good faith - how arrogant is that?
> The 1.0 standard gets more complex every day -- it is no longer a
> human/writer etc. format, it is for two software machines to interchange.
> The position that you can cut and paste the 1.0 stuff assumes that people
> who used to create RSS want to blindly create syndicated copy, did RSS-Dev
> ever consider that folks like to *know* what the markup means?
> It is now or never for the RSS 9.x group. If the name grab stands without
> challenge then the Namespace etc. group's argument will be strengthened by
> the non-action. A simple RSS that can be intelligently authored by real
> people will go away. Do enough people care about this to matter? No action
> will be interpreted by all to be -- no. Here's a thought, what if a group
> got together and created an RSS (really simple syndication, etc.)   spec.
> Any separate spec would require a major version number to be a "general
> release". I guess it would be RSS 1.0. Spend a little money, time
> and effort
> on PR and "let the marketplace decide which RSS 1.0 should prevail.
>
>
>
> This is a critical time for RSS 9.x if RSS-DEV keeps moving forward and no