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

Re: rss regularis(z)ation

• To: Bill Kearney <wkearney@i...>
• Subject: Re: rss regularis(z)ation
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:11:03 +0100
• Cc: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <009601c350aa$71dac150$200ca8c0@w...>
• References: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPAEOJDGAA.danny666@v...> <oprsow50ntezizxn@localhost> <3F1DC9FA.1010606@d...> <009601c350aa$71dac150$200ca8c0@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Bill Kearney wrote:
>>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.

 >applause<

'nuff said.

> 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.

So, put up, if you you have an argument at all. Why don't they 
conflate? Why is it silly?


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

What pedantic argument? Show me. And yes, I care. Using namespaces 
is to the best of my knowledge, a waste of money.

Bill de hÓra

• 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...>
  • Re: rss regularis(z)ation
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

• Prev by Date: 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