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

Please Vote, Everyone

Expand Messages
  • rael@oreilly.com
    Howdy Folks, Of the 234 people on this list, only 13 have voted on the poll currently underway. Since this kind of small turnout happens quite consistently and
    Message 1 of 5 , May 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy Folks,

      Of the 234 people on this list, only 13 have voted on the poll currently underway.

      Since this kind of small turnout happens quite consistently and also because of the magnitude of the discussion at hand, I'd like to encourage each and every one of you to take a few seconds and make yourselves heard by voting.

      It's anonymous.

      You can change your vote at any time (before the poll closes, of course).

      It's a way for even the lurkers among us to speak up on some important ideas, proposals, or changes on the table.

      So point your browsers at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=687541

      and help RSS-DEV make the right decisions.

      Thanks,

      Rael
    • Dan Brickley
      With some reluctance, I have just voted no. I d like to briefly explain why, since I was very encouraged by Dave s msg. The two flavours of RSS operate in the
      Message 2 of 5 , May 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        With some reluctance, I have just voted no. I'd like to briefly explain
        why, since I was very encouraged by Dave's msg.

        The two flavours of RSS operate in the same space. They are implemented
        by the same webmasters / content producers. They can be used for pretty
        much the same kind of thing. They each have technical strengths and
        weaknesses, but it is clear to me that they are competing for the
        attention of the same brain cells. Renaming the two strands, while
        defusing some of the stress we've had around here, will not I fear help
        out the ultimate consumers of those specs. It's an easy option: we
        rename and get on with our lives.

        I believe there is another option, equally reconciliatory, but involving
        a bit more work. We get our collective act together and tell the story
        of how these complementary specifications can be deployed alongside one
        another. We know from the various XSLT experiments that we can
        inter-convert between RSS flavours, that 0.93 extensions can be shadowed
        by RDF properties, that we can deploy XHTML (eg. the W3C home page) and
        use XSLT to aggregate RSS direct from the XHTML doc. I fear that
        creating new names for existing and future technology will simply add
        more confusion to the mix. Better to direct our 'agree to disagree'
        energies at giving our poor users an account of how all these things fit
        together.

        Dan

        On Thu, 31 May 2001 rael@... wrote:

        > Howdy Folks,
        >
        > Of the 234 people on this list, only 13 have voted on the poll currently underway.
        >
        > Since this kind of small turnout happens quite consistently and also because of the magnitude of the discussion at hand, I'd like to encourage each and every one of you to take a few seconds and make yourselves heard by voting.
        >
        > It's anonymous.
        >
        > You can change your vote at any time (before the poll closes, of course).
        >
        > It's a way for even the lurkers among us to speak up on some important ideas, proposals, or changes on the table.
        >
        > So point your browsers at:
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=687541
        >
        > and help RSS-DEV make the right decisions.
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Rael
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > rss-dev-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Dave Winer
        Dan, imho RSS was crafted to be easy for non-technical people. I don t want to try to explain to them why they might want to use RDF. You must do that
        Message 3 of 5 , May 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dan, imho RSS was crafted to be easy for non-technical people. I don't want
          to try to explain to them why they might want to use RDF. You must do that
          yourself, if you want to, but I can't help you do that. Dave
        • Edd Dumbill
          ... Well said. I too feel the same way. I can t help but think we have underdelivered so far on the tools and education front. -- Edd
          Message 4 of 5 , May 31, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 08:56:43AM +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
            > I believe there is another option, equally reconciliatory, but involving
            > a bit more work. We get our collective act together and tell the story
            > of how these complementary specifications can be deployed alongside one
            > another. We know from the various XSLT experiments that we can
            > inter-convert between RSS flavours, that 0.93 extensions can be shadowed
            > by RDF properties, that we can deploy XHTML (eg. the W3C home page) and
            > use XSLT to aggregate RSS direct from the XHTML doc. I fear that
            > creating new names for existing and future technology will simply add
            > more confusion to the mix. Better to direct our 'agree to disagree'
            > energies at giving our poor users an account of how all these things fit
            > together.

            Well said. I too feel the same way. I can't help but think we have
            underdelivered so far on the tools and education front.

            -- Edd
          • Dan Brickley
            ... Sigh... Just as I thought we were making some progress... back to business as usual. Dave, RSS 1.0 was also crafted to be easy for non-technical people.
            Message 5 of 5 , May 31, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 31 May 2001, Dave Winer wrote:

              > Dan, imho RSS was crafted to be easy for non-technical people. I don't want
              > to try to explain to them why they might want to use RDF. You must do that
              > yourself, if you want to, but I can't help you do that. Dave

              Sigh... Just as I thought we were making some progress... back to
              business as usual.

              Dave,

              RSS 1.0 was also crafted to be easy for non-technical people. It's a
              file format where content creators can pretty much just fill in the
              blanks. Unlike other RSS flavours, RSS 1.0 was also crafted for
              scalability and future-proofing: we can roll out new modules for use
              with RSS (eg. admin, event descriptions, taxonomy) without changing the
              core. What I was getting at in my post is that *all* of us care about
              our users, about improving the situation by better documentation,
              tutorials, HOWTOs, online tools etc. It is counter-productive to spread
              "RDF people don't care about the users" FUD just because we've taken a
              different set of technical decisions. None of us have a monopoly on
              user-centricity.

              I had hoped this might be another chance for reconciliation. I'm not
              asking for help in explaining RDF; RSS 1.0 does enough of that
              already. I'm looking for some collaboration across these groups so that
              for example we could explain how to deploy RSS using simple plain XHTML,
              without a single RDF-tainted angle bracket being used. The W3C home page
              is managed in just this fashion; aggregators extract RSS 1.0 by applying
              an XSLT transform to the HTML source. My claim is that this technique,
              although it happens to have been implemented by the "RSS 1.0" faction,
              is something we could all benefit from. And doubtless there are cool
              hacks from the "RSS 1.0 is too complicated" faction. While the detail
              of our favourite file formats differ, there's enough common goal there
              for it to be worth trying to patch things up.

              Dan
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.