Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Reject then reinvent..?
- From: Danny Ayers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:10:41 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Z4hI0/luAdNOCsl2oQiO3GyuLXSfbyw4G2aNSwklYNY2kOG4Xo3SxUH8JYJ7vQ+bWzOKTEsNGvE7PBREsqOrEA/HYmfjQvxHrnJlfyVwp5SQSvuWkQWnEUkRIGYiNnP6k6nJ7aSN6qm3M1N2MBiUL0GBA16RUgOhMvnjoJ8QT8s=
- Reply-to: Danny Ayers <email@example.com>
Probably the most significant differences between the Userland 0.9x
fork and rss-dev's RSS 1.0 were that the former eschewed XML
namespaces and RDF support.
I think it was around 2001 the <enclosure> element was added to the
Userland branch, allowing it to point to media files. This brought
back one of the capabilities that went with RDF, where a resource is a
resource, and you don't really need a new element when the mime type
Then when RSS 2.0 came along, it included namespace support - no
namespace of its own, but namespaced elements could now be added.
Yesterday Microsoft announced an extension  for RSS 2.0 that gives
support for the list data structure, something else that RSS/RDF has
been capable of for 5 years.
Looks like a pattern's emerging...
I was wondering if there were any other cases around where a spec
avoided using something like RDF on religious grounds, then later
crept back in exactly that direction. (Or if anyone knows whatever
happened to WinFS...)