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

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

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    ... Uhhh perhaps that s an unforunate choice of words. Perhaps it should have been phrased as a question. In which case the answer would be, hello Danny, I ve
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment


       
      >>So the answer is not to listen to anyone - bravo!  
       
      Uhhh perhaps that's an unforunate choice of words. Perhaps it should have been phrased as a question. In which case the answer would be, hello Danny, I've been listening and listening and enduring flames and such, waiting for a consensus.   
       
       
      Given: 0.91 still rules in installed base. (This is confirmed by Syndic8 and another crawler, pointer on RSS-DEV).
       
      Also given: We want extensibility and forward motion. (I do, I assume the others do as well, if not stick with 0.91).
       
      So therefore we listen and try to understand and compromise.
       
      Someone has been telling you that I'm not listening, apparently, but if that were so, why am I doing so much listening? ;->
       
       
       
      I accept your first two points, but that's where it stops. You may have been listening, but your actions have been almost diametrically opposed to what people have been saying. You wouldn't be hawking a broken spec if you'd listened, understood or compromised.
       
      Well, best of luck with it.
       
      Cheers,
      Danny.
       
    • 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.