Re: read the specification?!
I understand your point completely. But I wasn't suggesting that
everyone just read the specification for the fun of it. Amy Gahran
was specifically talking about trying to understand the enclosure
line through "immediately assume[ing]" and then complaining about
not being able to "enter and explore the mysteries" and further
lamenting about "But why, oh why, can't they go back and clarify
those terms in the key documents".
Clearly those who would want to "explore the mysteries" are not
themselves "'ordinary' humans". Ok...maybe I'm wrong about that, but
if you've gotten to the point of being able to create or modify an
RSS 2.0 document and are just confused about the length attribute,
then you've already gotten through (or appropriately ignored) much
of the complexity of the specification. Sometimes understanding
specifications is done by cherry picking the parts that make sense.
The only reason my hackles are raised is the answers are exactly
where Amy Gahran suggests they SHOULD BE: in the "key documents".
Amy just apparently failed to look OR those key documents are
confusing in a way that hasn't been explained.
I don't mean to be a rude or obnoxious geek. But jeez, if your going
to go exploring, get the well-published, and free, map. By
suggesting that because some specifications, like XML, are too
complicated for 'ordinary' humans and therefore all specifications
should be ignored by those 'ordinary' humans wishing to explore RSS
2.0 is kind of a leap.
Maybe it was the 'tecno-snobbery' comment that set me off.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone on the board. I'll gladly
interact (and have) with those wishing to explore RSS definitions
and implementations. I absolutely don't mind helping or explaining
things that *I* understand. Publicly or privately. Need help? Just
I'll try not exhibit any techno-snobbery while helping. If I do, let
me know. (Hmmm....am I now?)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Scot Mcphee <scot.mcphee@g...>
> >Why, oh why, must non-geeks lament about the apparent techno-not
> >snobbery when all that is required is to READ THE SPECIFICATION!
> I am an uber-geek, and even I find this funny. Specifications are
> meant to be read by 'ordinary' humans, but by implementers ofsystems,
> i.e. other geeks. Audience, audience, audience.