W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > June 2000

Re: RSS 0.91 restated

From: Laird A Popkin <laird@io.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:44:08 -0500 (CDT)
To: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
cc: xml-dev@xml.org, "Xml-Rpc@Egroups.Com" <xml-rpc@egroups.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, fork@xent.com, syndication@egroups.com
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006111735240.28459-100000@eris.io.com>
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. ICE doesn't use Namespaces of
XML Schema (since, among other things, they're not fully baked/widely
implemented) and isn't a dialect of RDF. Or are you talking about the
politics involved in any major revision of RSS, distinct from ICE?

Thus far the ICE AG has been amazingly free of politics, and
(unofficially) the concensus of the ICE AG is fairly positive about the
idea of working towards a single syndication standard.

In terms of simplicity, I think that (as I wrote in my "RSS in ICE"
document, http://www.io.com/~laird/rss-in-ice.html) it would be critical
to clearly define the subset of ICE so that implementors could have clear
guidance on what they'd need to implement to support the "give away
promotional content" model (i.e. RSS) as opposed to the "controlled
distribution of content" model (i.e. ICE's extended capabilities).

I'd hate to see RSS invent parallel mechanisms to ICE's existing
capabilities, just the same as I'd hate to see ICE invent parallel
mechanisms to RSS' existing mechanisms. That's why I think it's worth our
time to work out a single means of expressing these capabilities...

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Dave Winer wrote:

> Boy there would be some intense politics at that particular meeting. ;->
> 
> I'm still pondering how to move RSS forward. I definitely want ICE-like
> stuff in RSS2, publish and subscribe is at the top of my list, but I am
> going to fight tooth and nail for simplicity. I love optional elements. I
> don't want to go down the namespaces and schema road, or try to make it a
> dialect of RDF. I understand other people want to do this, and therefore I
> guess we're going to get a fork. I have my own opinion about where the other
> fork will lead, but I'll keep those to myself for the moment at least.
> 
> I see the biggest value in the large base of RSS 0.91 content, my goal is to
> add simple features to enable new applications, giving each a lot of
> thought, and foremost to retain the simplicity of 0.91. I guess I can't say
> that enough. ;->
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laird A Popkin" <laird@io.com>
> To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
> Cc: <xml-dev@xml.org>; "Xml-Rpc@Egroups.Com" <xml-rpc@egroups.com>;
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>; <fork@xent.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: RSS 0.91 restated
> 
> 
> > Once 0.91 is "pushed out the door" I'd suggest that we have a good
> > opportunity to explore merging RSS and ICE. I'd suggest setting up a
> > meeting between some of the ICE AG members and some of the folks involved
> > in RSS to see how things could play together to our mutual benefit.
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
> >
> > > After an impromptu RSS BOF at Dale Dougherty's Web Publishing track at
> WWW9,
> > > I resolved to get RSS moving again.
> > >
> > > What is RSS? Perhaps you don't know. If so, check out the brief history
> on
> > > today's Scripting News, here:
> > >
> > > http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2000/06/07#rss
> > >
> > > Then read the spec:
> > >
> > > http://backend.userland.com/rss091
> > >
> > > It's not final, but I expect it will be by the end of the week. It's
> just a
> > > cleanup and restatement of 0.91, with the Netscapeisms removed, and
> pointers
> > > to the specs that are behind RSS. There's been a fair amount of interest
> in
> > > evolving RSS, but I felt that first we needed a strong foundation, a
> spec
> > > that was simple, understandable and complete. Hopefully that's what we
> now
> > > have.
> > >
> > > Dave Winer,
> > > UserLand
> > >
> >
> 
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2000 18:44:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT