- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:37:06 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive@w3.org
On Feb 19, 2009, at 13:56, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:40:07 +0100, Sam Ruby > <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> This problem is way worse with title, there the specs and consumers >> (mostly) agree that it is plain text, yet the producers (mostly) >> agree that it is entity encoded HTML. That's why you might see >> things like AT&T in headlines. >> >> The only way forward in situations like this is to start over with >> a new format. People will never stop using RSS, but people who >> have a need for the problems that Atom fixes will migrate. And >> consumers will support both. > > I think RSS5 could have worked actually given that consumers > presumably have some interoperability or can get aligned because of > the feeds already deployed. It was mostly for political reasons that > such an approach was abandoned though presumably also because it's > less hassle to simply start over and leave the mess to implementors. > (See also design motivations for e.g. XForms.) FWIW, I agree. In retrospect, I think we should have done RSS5 despite the objections of the steward of RSS. Having Atom didn't help feed consumer apps that still need to sort out the RSS <title> disaster when RSS is served to them. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 13:37:48 UTC