I support your position, and I wish the community would adopt it as well. But no vendor should step out and have to support this situation. No vendor in hisMessage 1 of 34 , Sep 28, 2002View SourceI support your position, and I wish the community would adopt it as well. But no vendor should step out and have to support this situation. No vendor in his right mind will.However that said, there's a big distinction between Radio not including the xmlns attribute on the rss element, and it being removed from RSS 2.0. Rado is just a product. Once this is sorted out, and I hope it happens soon, and we won't be subject to stump speeches and declarations of broken-ness (see Sam Ruby's weblog), maybe we'll be able to bring it back.But the community has to manage the politics. It's totally a political thing. I can't let UserLand be the scapegoat for this stuff. Can't do it.Oh, come on - it wasn't the community that pushed out RSS 2.0, and that's the stuff that's caused the problem. I'm happy to help try and move things forward, as are a lot of other people, despite major misgivings about the course of recent events. Ok, don't let UserLand be the scapegoat for this stuff either - accept a bit of responsibility for your own actions, and either do what you can to help fix things or drop 2.0 altogether.Cheers,Danny.
I don t think Sam is suggesting backing off current version numbers. I think he is suggesting two different version numbers for the newest Userland format. UseMessage 34 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002View SourceI don't think Sam is suggesting backing off current version numbers.
I think he is suggesting two different version numbers for the
newest Userland format. Use RSS 0.94 for the non-namespace format
and RSS 2.0 for the version with the namespace option.
--- In RSS2-Support@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
> I thought of that of course, but it doesn't work -- because of the
existence of 1.0.
> One possible back-off is for the RDF folk to change the name of
their spec to something other than RSS 1.0. I don't see that
happening anytime soon, it's been debated ad nauseum, I can't devote
any more cycles to that option.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sam Ruby
> That sounds like a very easy problem to solve. Resurrect the
> All RSS 0.91 feeds continue to work.
> All RSS 0.92 feeds continue to work.
> All RSS 0.93 feeds continue to work.
> All RSS 0.94 feeds will work.
> This also gives RSS content producers an unambiguous way to
> namespaces contained herein" via the use of an 0.9x version
> for RSS content consumers to get fair warning that the
> troublesome to some consumers) namespaces are present when they
> encounter a 2.0 version number.
> I love it when an apparently intractable problem has a simple
> - Sam Ruby