[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
- From: "Thomas B. Passin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Eric van der Vlist <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:54:36 -0500
Eric van der Vlist writes -
> David Megginson wrote:
> > the RSS 1.0 WG has hit a sweet spot between
> > simplicity and functionality. Kudos.
> Thanks !
> > That said, the RSS 1.0 WG is now busying itself creating new add-on
> > modules, just like the XHTML people, and that's a BAD move: people
> > will (incorrectly) think that they need to learn and support all the
> > modules to support RSS, just as people think that they need to learn
> > and support XSL, XML-Schemas, XLink, XInclude, etc. etc. etc. to
> > support XML. I agree with the Kent Beck and the other XP people on
> > this point -- never add new functionality in anticipation, but wait
> > until people are screaming so loudly that you can no longer ignore
> > them.
Yes, but ... What can be good is to anticipate what you think is likely to
come and then to make sure the design can support it when you do decide to
> We do need to be careful here.
> I for one don't push any module but the ones I am using myself or plan
> to use short term.
> Do you think that it is a matter of "presentation" and that big
> disclaimers that modules are only useful to perform "special" functions
> would be enough or do we have to imagine other safeguards ?
Remember all the discussions during the design of SAX trying to work out the
ability to ask if certain functionality were present, and switch it on if so?
I'd use that as a model - let your code find out if more advanced modules are
present, and turn them on if they are wanted.
This would also serve the purpose of notifying users that these features are