RE: [RSS-DEV] The Focus Discussion (was Re: Time for a name change?)
>Switching metaphors, it was (and remains) important for RSS 1.0 to find aThere's plenty more work to do on defining what's being
>comfortable way to sit on the fence between the world of RDF tools and the
>world of XML tools. Fence-sitting is sometimes both painful and necessary.
>Apart from re-organising the rdf:Seq mechanism, I don't think there's much
>else we could've done technically.
modelled/represented, but I can't see why it shouldn't be possible to
straddle this fence quite comfortably. On one side of the fence, if it's
valid RDF it's nourishment for RDF tools, and (in principle) wide open for
extension. On the XML side, a syntax along the lines suggested by
Shelley/Sean would usable with existing XML tools and is simple enough for
copy&paste syndication. It doesn't look much like a technical problem, more
one of PR. Ask not what RSS does for RDF and vice versa...
The 0.9x community friendly version (a la Shelley/Sean) would simply be a
subset of format X, a 'Lite' version (to use a barbaric US coinage ;-) Valid
RDF, but something that could come from 0.9x systems with 3 lines of
It would be possible in the spec to explain this by saying what it does,
without reference to how or why. The user doesn't need to know the RDF
model, just accept the conventions and one or two peculiar strings (expect a
few more hits at namespace URIs).
The 'greater' spec wouldn't really have to introduce anything new - just
point to the RDF spec and say look, you can do magic with this (ok, maybe a
few usage examples would be good).
But in general the docs would be saying: you can do syndication just as
easily using this as you can with the flat XML format, but potentially your
feed will be a lot more useful to you and others. You can also do all kinds
of really cool stuff by using other vocabularies. Are you sitting
comfortably, "There once was a man named Ora Lassila..."