Hi Tim, thanks for getting in the loop. It s an interesting idea, but I don t think it will work. There are elements in 2.0 that are not in 0.92.  This isMessage 1 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002View SourceHi Tim, thanks for getting in the loop.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it will work.
There are elements in 2.0 that are not in 0.92. 
This is such a typical engineering problem, tradeoffs everywhere.
But it's unusual in that the knowledge is spread out over so many brains.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@...>
To: "Dave Winer" <dave@...>
Cc: <RSS2-Support@yahoogroups.com>; "UserLand-Internal"
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute
> On Saturday, September 28, 2002, at 09:52 AM, Dave Winer wrote:
> > Yes, that's what Tim Bray argued for, but as a commercial software
> > vendor, with customers, UserLand cannot afford to adopt this position.
> I just posted over at the discussion chez Hammersley, but here's a
> This isn't a namespaces problem, it's a versioning problem. When you
> put xmlns="fooo" on the root element, all the elements are in that
> namespace. Going to RSS 2.0 is *not* backward compatible because
> you've effectively changed the name of every element.
> That's why having the version= attribute in RSS is a good idea, because
> any half-ass decent software will deal with both various flavors of RSS
> feeds, but it's gonna be a lot easier with the version number.
> In any case, I thought Hammersley had the right idea.
> 1. Leave the namespaces in RSS2
> 2. For the short term, publishers who care can provide both an 0.9* and
> a 2.0 version
> 3. After 6 months or so, turn off all but 2.0.
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