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

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

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    ... 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,
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 29 4:18 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      >>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
       
       
       
       
    • 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 11:56 AM
      • 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.