Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:

> Aaron, I could be mistaken, but there's more going on.

Ahh, there's always more going on. :-) I think the RSS authors are trying to
create a spec that's backward-compatible, extensible and useful for future
development. And I think they've done a pretty good job. They've left open
extensibility so that you can use RSS as you wish and still be compatible.

If I understand you correctly, you want to create a set of elements for RSS
that are widely supported and you're free to do that. Just create your own
namespace and tie it into the proposal. You say namespaces are confusing,
but I have to disagree with you there. When used properly, they can actually
make XML easier to understand. Here's an example from my (proposed) content
module:

<item>
<title>The Content</title>
<link>http://example.com/content.html</link>
<content:text>This is the content.</content:xhtml>
</item>

Sure, I could have used text-content, or some such, but it works just fine
with namespaces and prevents collision with other modules. So why exactly
are you against the new proposal?

> What's the role of RDF in the proposal?

RSS is now (or once again) an RDF format, which has its benefits and
drawbacks. It does make RSS more complicated, which is a downside. However,
as R.V. Guha pointed out to me, you can easily escape from RDF if you don't
like it by using the rdf:parseType="literal" attribute. Again, I think this
is likely a best-of-both-worlds move.

--
Aaron Swartz |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>| When you have read it, destroy yourself."
<http://www.theinfo.org/> | - Marshall McLuhan