Yes, I think this makes sense.
Then the next step is to create space for the real RSS 1.0 spec, the stuff
you can use without namespaces, the one that can be five-screens and we can
test the aggregators for compliance with. And also so that supporting RSS by
content tools isn't a political decision.
Also, a heads-up, I have a busy day today, so I may not be available for a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:15 AM
Subject: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.
> Hello Dave, thanks for sharing your side of the story. Hopefully RSS can
> come to a resolution, but if not, it's good to hear your point of view.
> Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
> > Why don't we just adopt what they're using and add it to RSS?
> I think that the idea behind the use of namespaces is that we get the
> benefits of both. If someone wants to use RSS in a way that hasn't been
> approved by the "RSS tribunal" or whomever is managing the spec, they can
> it, in a way that won't affect anyone else. (That way we get the benefit
> movement and things don't get to slowed down or stagnated.) If we want to
> keep a stable core base, which people understand and agree on and is
> accepted by the aggregators, we can do that too, by having agreed-upon and
> approved modules.
> The point is that we're not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything,
> saying that can't modify the spec. If they want to add something to it,
> can go right ahead and do it. If we want to keep an "approved" portion of
> RSS, we can do that too, but not at the expense of other development.
> Does this make sense? I'm not sure I quite understand your concerns, but
> love to hear them.
> Aaron Swartz |"This information is top security.
> <http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>| When you have read it, destroy
> <http://www.theinfo.org/> | - Marshall McLuhan