4035Re: [RSS-DEV] Why is RSS 2.0 Bad? (Not a Rhetorical Question)
- Sep 25, 2002
>> Why is RSS 2.0 bad?At 11:10 PM +0100 9/25/02, Dan Brickley wrote:
>My concern: it introduces the ability to use XML namespaces for futureOk. I agree with the base correlation:
>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
- RSS 2.0 allows you to use new modules, yay!
- So, why aren't the new features in RSS 2.0, modules?
But I'm failing to see how that can be a "bad" thing, *technologically*.
Yes, from a theory point of view, the extra elements would make sense to be
in an optional namespace, to support the "core should be simple" ideal.
But, technologically, RSS v2.0 is compatible with RSS v0.91, since all the
added extra elements are optional.
However, my main concern is "which simple is more simple?". From a
developer standpoint, yes, having all the new 2.0 elements in a namespace
pleases me. But, that's only because I know what a namespace is. I also
know what XML is.
From an end-user standpoint, I *like* the idea that:
- I don't have to explain (or know) why <item> is different than <new:guid>
*Someone* will ask that, and I'll know that they won't need to know that
knowledge. But they're going to ask in the first place. And if I don't
answer them, someone else will, and could possibly confuse them even more.
Have you ever tried to explain to a normal end-user, who merely emails
their grandfather down in Florida, WHY they should upgrade to the newest
version of IE for Windows? They don't care about standards support or
neater tech. *What they don't know isn't harming them*.
Largely, namespaces in RSS 1.0 were used by people who already knew what a
namespace was, or else, could read a "How do I make a RSS 1.0 module doc?".
Primarily, as we've seen, RSS 1.0 modules are rarely supported, either by
aggregators, or by users outside the initial module creator.
Due to the above, I'm not convinced that having the new RSS 2.0
elements in a namespace would improve RSS 2.0 one bit.
At 11:10 PM +0100 9/25/02, Ben Hammersley wrote:
>major concern is also with the namespaces. There appears to be no"how modules should work", to whom? The end-users, or the developers?
>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
Morbus Iff ( shower your women, i'm coming )
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
Tech: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 - articles and weblog
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>