Re: Why only a namespace?
- --- In email@example.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
>The most important advantage would be to get rid of the RSS name and icon. To most people, if not all, RSS means blog. The orange waves make sense on Gizmodo, but look out of place and confusing on sites like Hulu and YouTube. Media feeds should have an icon and name that screams television and radio.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "stuartjmoore" <stuartjmoore@> wrote:
> > Why is MediaRSS only a namespace enhancement for RSS? Why not create
> > a truly unique format for distributing media?
> What advantage would creating a new format bring that couldn't be achieved with a namespace? Thousands of programs support RSS and Atom. They cover the basics of transmitting chronological updates to web content pretty well and are stable.
RSS is meant for "transmitting chronological updates to web content" and that's the problem. TV isn't web content. Blogs never schedule future updates, but broadcast programs do.
Why clutter a good format like RSS? Why not build a new format for this new purpose? One that will include the most basic tags.