Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 13:56, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:40:07 +0100, Sam Ruby <> 
>> 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&amp;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.

/me mutters "Monday Morning Quarterbacks"[1].

- Sam Ruby


Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 13:45:23 UTC