4034Re: [RSS-DEV] Why is RSS 2.0 Bad? (Not a Rhetorical Question)
- Sep 25, 2002On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 23:01 Europe/London, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Morbus Iff wrote:I've been away for three days, and might have missed a discussion about
>> First off, some ground rules:
>> - no dictator Winer comments.
>> - no "we need RDF" comments.
>> - no "this isn't a community spec" comments.
>> And now, the question:
>> Why is RSS 2.0 bad?
> My concern: it introduces the ability to use XML namespaces for future
> extensions, whilst simultaneously failing to use it for the extensions
> introduced in 2.0. If those extensions were folded into an extension
> module, 2.0 and 1.0 would be both technically and conceptually a lot
> closer. The core of RSS doesn't need much more than 'item', 'channel',
> 'link', 'title', 'description'. A simple common core could represent
this already (hell, you should see my inbox *whoooo*) but anyway, my
major concern is also with the namespaces. There appears to be no
indication as to how modules should work. With RSS 1.0 there is, more
or less (whoa there), a 'grammar' of sorts that tell us how to relate
the data within, and how to describe the vocabulary with a schema. With
2.0, there is no guidance, and no thought as to how to deal with the
world when there are 50+ modules. Without blathering on
semanticwebbaly, I really really like the potential for schema-aware
readers that comes with RDF, and the discipline it imposes. I'm lacking
that cosy feeling with 2.0.
I agree with Dan's point too, it is one of real puzzlement.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>