Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: ANN: RSS 1.1
 David Megginson wrote: > Those of us who don't belong to the rss-dev group would be grateful > for a bit of history. What made you decide to make another RSS fork? We're actually not thinking of this as a fork at all; there's neither technical nor political motivation to do so. The aim from the beginning has been simply to revise the work of the RSS-Dev WG, and to that end we were careful to ensure that we contacted several of its members privately before releasing--all of whom were enthusiastic about it. It's true that we didn't decide to go through regular RSS-Dev WG channels though, and there are several reasons for that: * We wanted to produce and release a polished specification a) so that we would have a very solid proposal to give to the RSS Dev WG and community, rather than engaging ourselves in endless Atom-style architectural discussions on the rss-dev mailing list (which may still occur yet!); and b) so that the draft was in the equivalent of a W3C Candidate Recommendation stage, where we're happy for people to implement its contents. * The RSS 1.1 specification was initially created in a period of extremely rapid development, the like of which may not have been possible, in our experience, in a larger group. * We knew that RSS-Dev would be happy for another specification to be developed since a number of recent comments had been made to look back at the RSS 1.0 work, which is now nearly five years old, and revise it. Nobody got around to doing this, however, because the group is mainly defunct in its capacity as a specification producer, and exists merely to host discussion surrounding clean-up and implementation issues. So in other words, the route of initial "renegade-development" and then a proposal to the wider group seemed to us to provide a much better cost to benefit ratio, and was a natural consequence of development anyway. > Is the rss-dev group responsible for RSS 1.x inactive or > unresponsive, or are there some fundamental architectural > disagreements? We've tried to follow existing literature and debates about proposed upgrades to RSS 1.0 as closely as possible in order to minimise this, but as with designing any XML application, there are always going to be people who fundamentally disagree about almost any feature. I'm glad that Tim Bray is so heavily involved in Atom at the moment, for example, so he won't notice that RSS 1.1 doesn't have a version attribute :-) Again, though, there has been a private review period where we've solicited the advice of various people engaged in RSS and XML work, and we've been using that as a yardstick for how RSS 1.1 would be received. We certainly wouldn't have gone ahead with the release if we thought that the response would be unfavourable. We expect that there's a significant likelihood, indeed, that the RSS Dev WG will support the endeavour in full. The nature of today's proposal has simply been to ask for that support: we had to start somewhere. Many thanks for your enquiry David, and I hope I've satisfactorily answered your questions. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
