RE: Re: [syndication] RE: RFC: Clearing confusion for RSS, agreement for forward motion

["Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>]

Howdy,

: --- In syndication@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:

: 1. RSS 0.91
:
: 2. RSS-Simple x.xx
:
: 3. RSS-Semantic-x.xx
:
: The problem is this.
:
: Why is RSS-Simple simpler than RSS 0.91?

I believe folks were proposing "Simple" based upon your
reallySimpleSyndication.  RSS-Simple is obviously a stand-in until a new
name is found.  We could borrow further from XMLNews and go with:

  RSS-Meta
  RSS-Story

The only problem is that RSS-Story might start carrying more metadata and
Meta (as RSS 1.0) already has a content module.  Here are a few more:

  RSS-Headline
  RSS-Syndication
  RSS-Content
  ...?

As for the RSS 1.0 side, I'm equally happy with RSS-Meta or RSS-Semantic;
I'm not particularly RSS-Pedantic about it ;-)

: The answer is: It isn't!

Nothing states that it should be; the simplicity refers to a lack of
namespaces, lack of RDF, and so on.

RSS is the root.

: Anyway, the only real issue here is clearing up the naming.

I'm glad we agree on this.  Of course, if you (or others) have any more
feedback on my response when you have more time, I'd of course love to hear
it.

: When the right names are arrived at, if they are, RSS will be simple and
: easy to understand, as it once was, and both paths forward will have an
: equal chance at attracting users. Lots more to say about it, but it all
: boils down to this.

I believe by simply uniting and putting forth a unified front and complete
story with RSS as the root and trunk and different branches, this will go
one heck of a long way toward making RSS simpler for all.  Currently its the
politics far more than the serialization that's far from simple.

Rael