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

4035Re: [RSS-DEV] Why is RSS 2.0 Bad? (Not a Rhetorical Question)

Expand Messages
  • Morbus Iff
    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 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

      Ok. I agree with the base correlation:

      - 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
      >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

      "how modules should work", to whom? The end-users, or the developers?

      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
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic