RE: [syndication] NameSplitting

["Jeff Barr" <jeff@vertexdev.com>]

Mark says,

> RSS 0.9x and RSS 1.0 are different formats, yes, but they are
> related; they have an intertwined history, and a common purpose -
> i.e., people who use syndication will know about both if they do a
> bit of homework, and will more than likely work with both eventually.

True, but we can handle this by supplying cross-referential links in
both specs. Perhaps we can even agree on a section titled "Which
syndication format should I use?" I think this would address most
of the issues raised later in your email.

> More to the point, Syndication as a whole is still catching on. I've
> been asking a lot of content providers to make their wares available
> in RSS lately, and by far the most common response is, "what?"

Ok, but if they do not know about it then there should not be any
harm in changing the name. I evangelize a lot of sites (several per
day). Most of them know about syndication but few know about formats.
They are waiting for someone to do it. The most common response I get
is:

	"I've been waiting for someone to ask for our headlines, 
	 thanks for the info about RSS, please wait a day or two 
	 and I will send you an email with the URL."

All of this tells me that we need to have a "rebranding event" in the
press. A nice story of a pair of formats, born of a common parent,
raised in conflict, and then ultimately united in a moment of 
transcendent understanding. 

The press will eat it up, we'll get lots of publicity, the old 
names will be quickly forgotten, and we will be buried in syndicated 
content. That's the real goal, right?

Jeff;

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:01 PM
To: syndication@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [syndication] NameSplitting



I'm really encouraged by what's happening here.

Dave, I like your proposal, but one thing came to mind on the first
reading - 

RSS 0.9x and RSS 1.0 are different formats, yes, but they are
related; they have an intertwined history, and a common purpose -
i.e., people who use syndication will know about both if they do a
bit of homework, and will more than likely work with both eventually.

More to the point, Syndication as a whole is still catching on. I've
been asking a lot of content providers to make their wares available
in RSS lately, and by far the most common response is, "what?"

If we change names away from RSS, we loose what little momentum we
have. If we change the names so that they are fundamentally
different, people don't link them in their minds, and they become
competing efforts in the user space, not just the developer space.

So, a thought - what about keeping the RSS as the root of their
names, but moving away from competing version numbers, which gives
people a feeling that the RDF version is the latest-greatest, rather
than an option?

e.g.,

RSS 0.91 -> RSS Simple 
RSS 1.0 -> RSS Semantic 

Each of those can have their own versioning system for future
development.

This would allow both of them to benefit from a single RSS
evangelization effort. Basically, we're telling the world that yes,
we can play together.

I think this was somewhat discussed a long time ago, but I'd like to
re-examine it in this atmosphere. Feel free to shoot it down - just
wanted to get it out there.

Cheers,

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/