Lists Home |
Date Index |
Yes, I've heard that argument 10,000 times, but it's based on a lie about an
First, Netscape chose to switch from 0.90's format to 0.91, so when you say
"you" that's incorrect. The correct answer is "they."
Regardless. The installed base spoke. RSS 1.0 is a cul de sac, a dream,
never took root. The users didn't want it.
C'est la vie.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com>
To: "Dave Winer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDF was a bully (was Re: [xml-dev] RDF and the new
> Dave Winer wrote:
> > What I meant of course is that RSS 0.90 was in no way a foundation for
> > the dreams people have for RDF. It's basically an XML format, and not a
> > 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.