4043Re: [RSS-DEV] Why is RSS 2.0 Bad? (Not a Rhetorical Question)
- Sep 25, 2002On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 00:33 Europe/London, Morbus Iff wrote:
>> That's my point. I can't see why not either - but we can't just assumeOnly if Dave accepts it into the spec. Sorry to bring that up, but it's
>> that that's the right approach, and the spec gives us no clues, nor
>> way of making a decision on such a thing. Or even raising the point. I
>> would have liked the 2.0 spec to have been closed when, and only when,
>> these things were totally worked out and documented.
> Ok. Well, if you want, I can take the 1.0 Module Building doc, turn it
> a 2.0 Module Building doc, and then that "2.0 roadblock" will be
as high as it is wide: there's no facility to do that without
potentially starting up arguments again.
But it would be very very useful. Do it!
>> them all the time. To take only those who talk about the specs at all,I wouldn't say that makes it more meaningless, but I know what you
>> is to take a very self-selecting group. My dad loves RSS, he just
>> wouldn't recognise it over HTML if he viewed source. The simplicity of
>> the spec, for him, is meaningless.
> Where do you stand on the namespace/core issue? If the RSS source and
> is meaningless to an end-user, it sounds like people are implying that
> making it more meaningless (by requiring knowledge of namespaces)
> isn't a
mean. I'm in two minds. I can see that for people wishing to build very
lightweight clients, the choice of only implementing <title> <link> and
<description>, and yet still being sure that you have a fully
certifiable RSS reader, is very nice indeed. In that respect, shoving
everything else into namespaces is just a good excuse to leave things
unimplemented within apps. Not necessarily a bad thing.
But I can also see that namespaced xml might be a tad trickier to do
wacky stuff with. I'm more with the first than the second, but its 0045
and I'm too tired to have an opinion on anything with angle brackets.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>