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

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

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    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
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 29 10:32 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
       
      Otherwise everyone (understandably) thinks that 1.0 is better somehow than 0.9x. Can't have that.
       
      Moral of the story: It would have worked much better if the decision to call the RDF branch 1.0 had been done in the open with all voices being heard and (key point) listened to.
       
      Dave
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Sam Ruby
      Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:25 AM
      Subject: Re: [RSS2-Support] Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute

      Dave Winer wrote:
      >
      > 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. [1]

      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




      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 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.