[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dave Winer wrote:
> What I meant of course is that RSS 0.90 was in no way a foundation for all
> the dreams people have for RDF. It's basically an XML format, and not a
very
> widely supported one. Don't be confused. Dave
>
What you say here is true, but what you said was:
[[
John Cowan said: "One could equally well say that RSS 0.91 hijacks the
RDF-compliant RSS 0.9.A plague o' both your houses. My company supports
both."
Yes, I've heard a lot of people say that, but it's not true.
0.90 was not in any way RDF-compliant.
]]
and the simple fact is that 0.90 *was*/*is* RDF 'compliant', so as many of
us see it, the folks who started RSS intended for it to be RDF, you changed
that in 0.91 and other folks changed it back in 1.0. Now you may rightly
feel that 0.91 is a better XML format or have whatever other technical
reasons for doing what you have done, but it's not correct to claim that RSS
1.0 is a hijacking of RDF, when it actually harks back to RDF's roots --
recall that RDF itself arose from an Apple errort -- and supposedly has not
been supported by Microsoft from day 1 for that very reason. In any case
these sorts of political battles do nothing to support the cause of either
XML or RDF, to the extent that either XML or RDF can be described as a
'cause' to start with.
Jonathan
|
