Re: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute
- >>So, apart from allowing modularity, the only reason is a wishy-washy one of unambiguity and correctness... but that's good enough for me.Interesting analysis Marcus -- but I wonder if the breakage is really worth it.And I mean that quite literally. I wonder.One thing I don't wonder about, the quality of the discussion yesterday was fantastic. I learned a tremendous amount from it. I think we identified the core issue. It's a tradeoff of breakage vs tradition. Which do you choose to break -- aggregators or the W3C process? When I put it that way, I have no doubt about what's the right thing to do. That leads me to Don Park's position, which is backed up by Jake Savin.On the other hand, I see the wisdom in what Ben Hammersley proposes, and I think that Sam Ruby is saying largely the same thing, although Ben said it more diplomatically (that enters the mind easier, btw, Sam).Anyway, I'll be back in a few more hours, I just woke up in the middle of the night with some thoughts. Keep on truckin..Dave
- 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.
--- 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