Re: A newbies opinion (if I still qualify!)

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

James Shaw <yahoo@coveryourasp.com> wrote:

> Well, I think it would. "RSS-basic" and "RSS-extensible" tell
> developers to look at RSS-basic first (Sorry RSS-dev if that's not
> what you want) and if it satisfies their needs, fine (which for the
> majority it probably will).

Thanks for sharing your point of view, James. This is one of the major
reasons I'm wanting to hold on to the RSS name right now. RSS 1.0 is very
much in the RSS family. The WG worked long and hard to make it
backwards-compatible and use the same structure. Trust me, we would have
_loved_ to start with something new -- it would have made our work so much
easier. But instead we believed in RSS and so we extended it.

I must say that I'm certainly not looking forward to the onerous task of
fixing everything I've written that refers to RSS to refer to "RSS, QTS and
XPS" or whatever names they might be changed to. I don't want to have to go
around clearing up confusion, explaining to people that what they used to
think was RSS is now QTS and its related to this spec XPS which used the be
known as RSS 0.92, etc."

Most people, I think, don't care about the history. What they care about is
the fact that they have a format that works well for them and is compatible
with processors that claim to support "RSS". Certainly, that's what I care
about.

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]