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

Re: rss regularis(z)ation

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: rss regularis(z)ation
• From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:19:57 -0400
• Organization: http://www.ideaspace.net/users/wkearney/foaf.xrdf
• References: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPAEPBDGAA.danny666@v...>
• Reply-to: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

> > Are those resisting namespaces just being stupid/stubborn, or are they the
"canaries
> > in the coalmines" dropping over from the toxic namespace fumes?
>
> A lot of the arguments I've heard against XML namespaces end with "...but
> I'll use them if I have to...", so I'm not sure about the toxicity. But in
> the context of RDF they make so much sense I personally find it hard to
> understand the objections. But (as has been joyfully pointed out here
> before) RDF/XML is hardly typical XML. So is there a bad smell to
> namespaces? Maybe.

I'd also like to see an valid explanation of this so-called 'toxcitity' some
folks wave about.  At several points _in_the_past_ some tools have had major
problems dealing with namespaces properly.  This is no longer the case.

> I wouldn't characterise those as much aspects of RSS practice, rather of
> certain practitioners. I don't think the CDATA stuff is quite as bizarre as
> it seems - the motivation is to use HTML markup for content, but without
> namespaces and XHTML this leads to a bit of a mess.

And making the transition to XHTML for content is a HUGE change.  Many tools do
not properly emit XHTML.  This goes back to the excuses the namespace naysayers
have likely used.  But at the present time XHTML isn't a reality for most
content producing environments.  I'd certainly /like/ to use it but the tools I
have at my disposal don't make it very pleasant.

> Heh, I agree with your conclusion but not your observations! The first one
> anyway - there has been a continuous tug-of-war between developers that want
> to do things as 'properly' as possible and those that want things to be as
> 'simple' as possible. There probably wouldn't have been any conflict if
> 'simple' hadn't used underspecification as a tool. The 'properly's have
> often frightened the 'simple's when talking about standards, namespaces and
> so on, and now the 'properly's are moving on with Atom. Meanwhile the
> 'simple' RSS 2.0 wagons have circled around some good stuff but also quite a
> lot of garbage.

+1 on the wagon circling analogy.   +10 on the idea of how underspecification
(and vendor arrogance) has caused most of the trouble.

-Bill Kearney

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Bill_de_h=D3ra?= <bill@d...>
  • Re: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

• References:
  • RE: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• Prev by Date: RE: rss regularis(z)ation
• Next by Date: 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