W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Namespace for atommedia

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:34:16 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1002180134x542e85a6s7cb0403e3854bfde@mail.gmail.com>
To: activity-streams@googlegroups.com
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "atommedia@googlegroups.com" <atommedia@googlegroups.com>, Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 17 February 2010 23:24, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com> wrote:
> Largely because MediaRSS is overspecified, no longer actively maintained,
> and a bit crufty.

I don't wish to be too critical, getting thing to work is obviously
the priority. But I'd like to find out why it was felt that
reinvention was preferred over reuse.
Overspecified shouldn't be a problem, nor cruftiness, maintenance is a
good point.

> You can use MediaRSS with ActivityStreams if you want (it's just another
> namespace) but we wanted to limit requiring support for all the additional
> metadata that MediaRSS specifies.

It's maybe just me coming from an RDF-oriented place, but I don't see
why you can't just cherry-pick the terms that are useful, ignore the

> There is intentionally an overlap in terms — as AtomMedia should look
> familiar to anyone who's worked with MediaRSS. In some ways, AtomMedia is
> almost more like a pared down profile of MediaRSS, designed to work in Atom
> feeds.

Tell me Chris, are there political reasons not to use (Yahoo!)
MediaRSS - perfectly understandable if so, but technically I see no
reason for not favouring reuse.

Again from the RDF world you can say <this:enclosure>
<owl:sameClassAs> <that:enclosure> - but it does mean the writing of
another query, another XSLT...

What would the Dalai Lama do?


Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 09:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:37 UTC