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

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

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    Hey Danny, we re working on it. That s great. And I agree with your point. You re right, no one on RSS-DEV list was clamoring for RSS 2.0. They were happy with
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
       
       
      Hey Danny, we're working on it.  
       
      That's great. 
       
      And I agree with your point. You're right, no one on RSS-DEV list was clamoring for RSS 2.0. They were happy with the status quo. I even think I understand why.
       
      However, if we can maneuver it so that it's safe for UserLand to ship a Radio that uses namespaces, it may have the effect of pulling through an upgrade of XML parsers out there in the AggregatorLand, even the one-offs, and that would be good for everyone, n'est-ce pas. 
       
      That would be a very positive outcome. The syntax and usage of namespaces isn't very pretty, but they enable interoperability big style. The Semantic Web doesn't necessarily need RDF, but it sure as anything needs namespaces (or equiv.).
       
      In other words, stick around, we may be on the verge of nailing it. 
       
      Again, that's great. Thanks for replying btw, I thought after I'd clicked 'send' on that last mail that I might have added too much hominy ;-)
       
      Cheers,
      Danny.
       
       
       
       ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:27 AM
      Subject: RE: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute

       
      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.  
       
       
      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.

      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.

      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.