- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:00:54 +0530
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:52:17 +0530, Karl Dubost <karl at w3.org> wrote: > > Le 6 d?c. 2006 ? 04:08, Martin Atkins a ?crit : >> Mike Schinkel wrote: >>> >>> All really sucessful text formats have been easy to edit (why did >>> RSS take off while RDF is still struggling to get off the ground?) >> > >> >> I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but it could be >> argued that RSS has done well while RDF has floundered largely because >> RSS solves a real-world problem (how to get news/weblog content into >> aggregators) while RDF solves a purely theoretical problem that less >> people have a pressing need to solve (A generic representation of >> relationships between resources). > > just for the record and if you really want to compare things. > RSS 2.0 is an application of XML > RSS 1.0 is an application of RDF/XML I would characterise it differently. Every wo/man and their blog uses (some half-arsed borken form of) RSS because it solves trivial little problems that are faced by zillions of people. RDF has a smaller usage base, because the problem it solves is interesting to a smaller group. That said, the more complex problem is where a lot of money is being spent, and there is significant interest in it from people who are building businesses beyond the small web-design shop. To say it is foundering seems to me like suggesting that jet aircraft are foundering because most people use propellor planes, or cars. cheers -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo espa?ol - je parle fran?ais - jeg l?rer norsk chaals at opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 10:30:54 UTC