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

Re: [RSS-DEV] Re: IMPORTANT: RSS by any other name...

Expand Messages
  • Brian Aker
    ... I have to say, I already think this is pretty much a waste of time. Let the names stay the same, in the end code will be what wins the day. AKA what is
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      rael@... wrote:
      >
      > And speaking of lobbying...
      >
      > """
      > Some more friendly advice for members of the Syndication mail list,
      > please vote for option #2 in the current poll to create lots of room
      > for innovation in XML-based content syndication formats for the Web.
      > """
      > (www.scripting.com)
      I have to say, I already think this is pretty much a waste of
      time. Let the names stay the same, in the end code will be what
      wins the day. AKA what is supported will be what is used.

      I watch slashdot's polls and they are worthless. Polls on the net
      are for fun, you can not use them for any valid purpose. It
      it far to simple to rig them (hell, get enough sites to just
      post this as a story and you will get a ton of worthless opinions).

      BTW I voted against changing the name. A number of groups
      have already started to support RSS 1.0. Changing names midstream
      just confuses people and typically leads to lost momentum. Just
      drop the polls, let people complain about the names and
      work on what is needed.
      Stuff like this is just a time waster, don't let yourself
      get sucked in.

      -Brian
      --
      _______________________________________________________
      Brian Aker, brian@...
      Slashdot Senior Developer
      Seattle, Washington
      http://tangent.org/~brian/
      http://slashdot.org/
      _______________________________________________________
      You can't grep a dead tree.
    • Dave Winer
      ... This is why, once this issue has been resolved, I m getting out of RSS work. It s a nasty little place. Dave
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >>Dave Winer's personal fiefdom

        This is why, once this issue has been resolved, I'm getting out of RSS work.

        It's a nasty little place.

        Dave
      • Dingley, Andy
        ... I m sorry if you object to the term, Dave, but this piece of tech is too important for it to become _anyone s_ personal property. There are groups putting
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
          > >>Dave Winer's personal fiefdom

          I'm sorry if you object to the term, Dave, but this piece of tech is too
          important for it to become _anyone's_ personal property. There are groups
          putting fairly big money into RSS-related work (0.9, 1.0 and 0.9x) and any
          attempt to start retro-actively claiming ownership of it is going to end in
          a big slapfest with our friends in the sharkskin suits.

          As a STRICTLY PERSONAL VIEWPOINT, I regard the 0.9x development as being far
          too self-obsessed for its own good. There's no point in being more specific,
          lest this turn into a Usenet-style flamewar, but just assume I'm no great
          fan of it.


          RSS 2.0 is cool. Now doesn't that seem to keep everyone happy ?



          (disclaimer again - this ain't HP's mud I'm slinging)
        • Rael Dornfest
          ... The obfuscation really isn t just in your writing, is it? You honestly don t seem to understand the difference between asking folks to vote on an issue
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]

            > Amazing double-standard, first you lobby this list and then have
            > the gall to
            > object when I point to it.

            The obfuscation really isn't just in your writing, is it? You honestly
            don't seem to understand the difference between asking folks to vote on an
            issue and suggesting they vote a particular direction.

            Rael
          • Mike Gunderloy
            I expect I m not the only one who doesn t care to sit through yet another session of wineyness, er, whineyness. I m off to unsubscribe. Someone wake me up when
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I expect I'm not the only one who doesn't care to sit through yet
              another session of wineyness, er, whineyness. I'm off to unsubscribe.
              Someone wake me up when we get back to discussing RSS, the standard set
              by the open process, instead of RSS, the feifdom.

              Mike Gunderloy
              http://www.larkfarm.com
            • Dave Winer
              ... important for it to become _anyone s_ personal property. There are groups putting fairly big money into RSS-related work (0.9, 1.0 and 0.9x) and any
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                >>I'm sorry if you object to the term, Dave, but this piece of tech is too
                important for it to become _anyone's_ personal property. There are groups
                putting fairly big money into RSS-related work (0.9, 1.0 and 0.9x) and any
                attempt to start retro-actively claiming ownership of it is going to end in
                a big slapfest with our friends in the sharkskin suits.

                My company happens to be one of the companies that put "fairly big money"
                into RSS. Now you're beginning to understand what the issue is and why the
                style of competition exemplified by "RSS 1.0" is so totally unacceptable. It
                was unilateral, organized off-list, and never had any kind of approval from
                the members of the RSS community. What I offered last week was a fairly
                graceful way out of something that was pretty disgraceful.

                Dave
              • Chris Nandor
                ... I feel the same way; a few years ago I simply swore off contact with Dave. I don t killfile him, but I don t reply to him and rarely read his messages or
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:16 -0700 2001.06.04, Mike Gunderloy wrote:
                  >I expect I'm not the only one who doesn't care to sit through yet
                  >another session of wineyness, er, whineyness. I'm off to unsubscribe.
                  >Someone wake me up when we get back to discussing RSS, the standard set
                  >by the open process, instead of RSS, the feifdom.

                  I feel the same way; a few years ago I simply swore off contact with Dave.
                  I don't killfile him, but I don't reply to him and rarely read his messages
                  or replies to his messages. I have a feeling this storm should blow over
                  soon, and I suggest you just wait it out.

                  --
                  Chris Nandor pudge@... http://pudge.net/
                  Open Source Development Network pudge@... http://osdn.com/
                • Dave Winer
                  Look at all the personal crap people drudge up. Amazing how quickly this devolves to that. Shame on you Chris. Dave ... From: Chris Nandor
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Look at all the personal crap people drudge up.

                    Amazing how quickly this devolves to that.

                    Shame on you Chris.

                    Dave


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Chris Nandor" <pudge@...>
                    To: <rss-dev@yahoogroups.com>
                    Cc: "Mike Gunderloy" <MikeG1@...>
                    Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:20 AM
                    Subject: RE: [RSS-DEV] Re: IMPORTANT: RSS by any other name...


                    > At 11:16 -0700 2001.06.04, Mike Gunderloy wrote:
                    > >I expect I'm not the only one who doesn't care to sit through yet
                    > >another session of wineyness, er, whineyness. I'm off to unsubscribe.
                    > >Someone wake me up when we get back to discussing RSS, the standard set
                    > >by the open process, instead of RSS, the feifdom.
                    >
                    > I feel the same way; a few years ago I simply swore off contact with Dave.
                    > I don't killfile him, but I don't reply to him and rarely read his
                    messages
                    > or replies to his messages. I have a feeling this storm should blow over
                    > soon, and I suggest you just wait it out.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Chris Nandor pudge@... http://pudge.net/
                    > Open Source Development Network pudge@... http://osdn.com/
                    >
                    > 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/
                    >
                    >
                  • Dingley, Andy
                    ... Granted. Userland worked with RSS 0.9 when no-one else (and certainly not Netscape) was interested in it. Credit where it s due. ... _What_ competition ?
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dave Winer wrote:
                      >
                      > My company happens to be one of the companies that put "fairly big money"
                      > into RSS.

                      Granted. Userland worked with RSS 0.9 when no-one else (and certainly not
                      Netscape) was interested in it. Credit where it's due.


                      > Now you're beginning to understand what the issue is and why the
                      > style of competition exemplified by "RSS 1.0" is so totally unacceptable.

                      _What_ competition ? RSS 1.0 does its own thing, and has never tried to
                      mandate anything concerned with anything not calling itself "RSS 1.0". RSS
                      0.9x exists, and (speaking as a day-to-day RDF developer) it's a good thing
                      too - an RDF based _anything_ hasn't been ready to fly until very recently,
                      whereas useful XML apps. could be rolled out a few years ago.



                      There are just two issues I object to:

                      Any attempt to mandate "an RSS *.* group MUST / MUST NOT use RDF" (either
                      choice, by any group)

                      "RSS !=n" must stop calling itself RSS, because "RSS n" 'owns' the name.

                      If RSS 0.9x wants to continue pushing the (XML / no RDF) route, then I
                      certainly don't have a problem with that.
                      Translation is easy enough, after all.
                    • dave.cantrell@gunter.af.mil
                      ... Sure, except then 1.0 won t be able to expand through versions any higher than 1.999, just like 1.0 did to 0.9x, creating a new format with the same name
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >I'm sorry if you object to the term, Dave, but this piece of tech is too
                        >important for it to become _anyone's_ personal property. There are groups
                        >putting fairly big money into RSS-related work (0.9, 1.0 and 0.9x) and any
                        >attempt to start retro-actively claiming ownership of it is going to end in
                        >a big slapfest with our friends in the sharkskin suits.
                        >
                        ....
                        >RSS 2.0 is cool. Now doesn't that seem to keep everyone happy ?

                        Sure, except then 1.0 won't be able to expand through versions any higher
                        than 1.999, just like 1.0 did to 0.9x, creating a new format with the same
                        name without consulting the "earlier" format's development teams, and we'd
                        be having more polls and more discussion and more committee voting and not a
                        damn bit of real work being done...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.