Re: [syndication] Dave Winer's RSS 2.0

[Dan Brickley <daniel.brickley@bristol.ac.uk>]

Seems a bit rushed. Good to see namespaces (sorta) in there, although the
lack of any detailed guidelines for their use makes me worry it'll create
chaos. The idea of stabilising on a basic core and using namespaces for
extensibility is a good one, and one of the principles behind RSS 1.0. I'm
failing to see what Dave's "RSS 2.0" adds to that except for a bunch of
stuff that could have been added via namespaces. Forgetting the name and
versioning debate, I'd like to see a bit more discussion about how exactly
this flavour of RSS is supposed to work in practice. If it really adopts
namespaces, then why not stick the more esoteric elements (eg. cloud) in
an extension namespace?

Dan

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Chris Croome wrote:

> Hi
>
> What do people think about Dave Winer's plan [1] to issue RSS 2.0
> [2] tomorrow?
>
> Is it just a matter of fixing the details as Ben Hammersley implies
> [3] (I could add internationalisation to that list...) or is there a
> far bigger _fundamental_ problem with the 'benevolent dictator'
> appoach to the production of web standards?
>
> I've copied this to rss-dev for info but please follow this up on
> the syndication list [4] since cross-posting is bad and the rss-dev
> list is not as broad-based as the syndication one :-)
>
>
> Chris
>
> [1] http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2002/09/09#attnSpecWonks
>
> [2] http://backend.userland.com/rss
>
> [3] http://rss.benhammersley.com/archives/001320.html
>
> [4] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>