Marcus, if you have language to propose for the spec, that s great. Could you break it out into a separate message and say clearly what it is. BTW, anotherMessage 1 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002View SourceMarcus, if you have language to propose for the spec, that's great.Could you break it out into a separate message and say clearly what it is.BTW, another narrative from Fredrik Lundh.Dave----- Original Message -----From: Marcus CampbellSent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 4:58 AMSubject: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute--- In RSS2-Support@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
> Interesting analysis Marcus -- but I wonder if the breakage is
> really worth it.
...but the spec could remain correct and most of the breakages could
be avoided - I believe - if the spec explicity made the requirements I
went into in the second half of that post. I don't think there _has_
to be a complete tradeoff between maintaining correctness and avoiding
breakages while allowing for namespaces.
Anyone else able to confirm if this would be true?
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
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