[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:39:11 -0700, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Your comments do not reflect my experiences with the world of RSS. Can
> you clarify with concrete examples instead of generalisms?
Nah, I think I'll shut up now :-) I really just skim the surface of the
RSS/Atom worlds periodically, so don't have any concrete examples. I jumped
in only to pushback on the assertion that RSS is not an example of the
success of "XML" because of the casual use of the standards by some/many
[let's not go there] RSS practioners.
I just find it very interesting to watch the interplay of "basic" XML
concepts such as tagnames / attributes / text and "advanced" XML technology
such as schemas and namespaces in a world that has no recognized authority
to make decisions and enforce them. My current hypothesis is that the
"advanced" stuff requires more order than many real-world communities can
offer, but the "basic" stuff just trucks along even when the parties
involved are not on speaking terms. So, people SHOULD be conservative in
what they produce, but that requires some agreement on standards, and that
process is about people and personalities and politics rather than
technology. RSS is not unique -- for example, the SOAP "reliable
messaging" space is just as contentious, if not as nasty, in creating
incompatible "standards" for what look to an outsider like the same damn
thing. Maybe the "be liberal in what you consume" phase needs to go on
longer before people worry too much about what the standard is ... and
there is a big chunk of the XML corpus that works just fine without that.
But that's xml-dev permathread Zero, and I can't think of anything new to
say about it!
|
