... I can understand the problem. Breakages could actually work against those wishing to advance RSS, because some end-users could regress to 0.9* just to beMessage 1 of 34 , Sep 28, 2002View Source--- In RSS2-Support@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
> I support your position, and I wish the community would adopt it asI can understand the problem. Breakages could actually work against
> well. But no vendor should step out and have to support this
> situation. No vendor in his right mind will.
those wishing to advance RSS, because some end-users could regress to
0.9* just to be confident their output works in all systems. This is
one of the current problems users face with all the various versions
of RSS anyway.
I'm sure this has been covered already, but, any issues with the basis
of 2.0 have to be ironed out. (Although, are there actually any
non-political issues remaining?) Then there should be a lot of good
non-technical documentation written - especially on the benefits of
supporting, or handling, 2.0 and namespaces - and finally a great deal
of evangelism with vendors.
Fixing breakage issues isn't generally as hard as it appears, if
people are willing to guide vendors on how to fix their products and
why they should.
I think you should warn about namespaces on the spec, but I'm not sure
it's wise to explicitly advise removing them. That practically makes
them optional, which I don't think would do eventual uptake much good.
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