Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Yes, that s what Tim Bray argued for, but as a commercial software vendor, with customers, UserLand cannot afford to adopt this position. It s interesting that
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, that's what Tim Bray argued for, but as a commercial software vendor, with customers, UserLand cannot afford to adopt this position.
       
      It's interesting that it became a support issue with a very experienced XML developer, who certainly could understand this issue as you have explained it, but he can also explain, if he chooses to, how as a user, he was not willing to accept this breakage.
       
      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 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.
       
      Dave
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 9:44 AM
      Subject: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute

      In my opinion, I think it's fair to assume that some parsers are going
      to break with the introduction of namespaces and that it's unavoidable
      or, at least, that it shouldn't be avoided.

      Parsers that can't handle namespaces should be the things that are
      modified to handle or ignore them, not the format / output itself.
      Removing the namespace from 2.0 makes much of the format's basis
      invalid, and hacks out pretty much all of what makes it 2.0 rather
      than 0.94 - what makes it better.

      I firmly believe that perfect backwards compatability isn't always the
      best idea. (In fact, I would have preferred the core of 2.0 to be
      _lighter than 0.91_. Then again, I didn't even open my gub to suggest
      that long before now. My fault.)


      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      RSS2-Support-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • bloebrich
      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. Use
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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. Use RSS 0.94 for the non-namespace format
        and RSS 2.0 for the version with the namespace option.

        Sincerely,
        Bruce Loebrich

        --- 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
        0.94 spec.
        >
        > 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
        say "no
        > namespaces contained herein" via the use of an 0.9x version
        number. And
        > for RSS content consumers to get fair warning that the
        (apparently
        > 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
        solution.
        >
        > - Sam Ruby
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.