[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: rss regularis(z)ation

• To: "Bill de hÓra" <bill@d...>, "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: rss regularis(z)ation
• From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:39:04 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Organization: http://www.ideaspace.net/users/wkearney/foaf.xrdf
• References: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPAEOJDGAA.danny666@v...> <oprsow50ntezizxn@localhost> <3F1DC9FA.1010606@d...>
• Reply-to: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

> Everyone and his dog wants to use RSS to /carry/
> their vocabulary, not extend RSS.

Well then woof, woof.  Out here on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.

> That's a world of difference,
> Everyone (maybe not the dog) believes the way to do that is to XML
> namespace the vocab and use RSS as the common carrier. That's not
> extensbility, that's SOAP.

Six of one, half-dozen of another.  Does anyone care?  The point is people ARE
making use of it for adding additional well-formed data.  That's a pretty weak
reach to try painting with with some silly SOAP equivalence argument.  They just
don't conflate.

Besides making some pedantic argument about technical purity, what difference
does it make?  Who cares?

-Bill Kearney

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>

• References:
  • RE: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
  • Re: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: namespaces (was RE: rss regularis(z)ation)
• Next by Date: Re: namespaces (was RE: rss regularis(z)ation)
• Previous by thread: Re: rss regularis(z)ation
• Next by thread: Re: rss regularis(z)ation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread