> 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

So, Aaron, because we disagree you get to make the rules?

So sad it comes to this. If you'd stop and think you'd realize there's a
win-win here, all it takes is a little listening and considering other
points of view.

So sad, because there will be two RSS 1.0s.

So confusing, so embarassing.

(And a waste of time!)

See you in the market.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@...>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.


> 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.
>
. 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
>
>
>
>
>
>