Lists Home |
Date Index |
> >>the solution is simple: don't use
> > it. Don't use it. Don't study it, look at it, listen about it, work with
> > sleep with it, or generally go out and dance late at night with it.
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have been neutral
> about RDF if it
> hadn't been forced on us in the context of RSS. From that point I
> saw it not
> as technology, but a religious cause, certainly one that I wanted
> nothing to
> do with. But it wasn't offered as a choice Shelley, it was rammed down our
> Reading your last paragraph, it would have been good if the RDF advocates
> had recognized the work that had gone into RSS before they tried to hijack
> it. To this day they don't recognize it. Look at the design of RSS 1.0 and
> how disrespectfully it treats 0.91, which to this day dwarves its
> If RDF wants to be considered, it should make a thoughtful proposal -- not
> be the bull in a china shop that it has been.
Dave, but you didn't have to use it, and you didn't use it, and Userland
doesn't support it. Case closed. Don't like RSS 1.0? Ignore it then. We'll
use whatever we want. In my case I currently support RSS 1.0 as my preferred
format, but that's just me and my personal choice. Such is life.
But you also must remember that the first Netscape release of RSS was called
"RDF Site Summary", and was based in RDF (see
http://www.purplepages.ie/RSS/netscape/rss0.90.html). I would say that the
RDF community really didn't 'hijack' RSS as much as reclaimed one of their
Regardless, the world is buzzing along with both RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0 and
never shall the two meet and that's cool because we're all managing just
fine with both.
However, if a third aggregation/syndication format comes out, I vote we all
tie and gag the originator and stuff him or her into a deep footlocker
somewhere and throw away the key. Oh wait a sec? Does Aaron read this list?