That's fine. But I'm going to keep going. I'm tired of debating this stuff.
I've been having a lot of fun in the last couple of months, and it's only
been in the last few days that it started to turn into the usual
hand-wringing, trying to keep you from hearing things that apall you. Enough
is enough. These guys want to own RSS. I put a ton of work into it. Somehow
reconcile that with your appalled-ness. This is not a nice thing that's
going on. I'm apalled. Welcome Per Kreipke to the land of the apalled. Dave



----- Original Message -----
From: "Per Kreipke" <per@...>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.


Dave,

As a fervent admirer and user of Userland's Frontier, I am appalled by your
posts to this list. For a guy with a 'flame retardent policy' your tone and
attitude is anything but. So, let's 'stop walking on eggshells' and look at
the things you've said so far.

> It's not just because the "proposal" is written by geeks for geeks,
> and that most of the content worth syndicating is produced by people who
write
> and edit and do cool stuff that these guys don't have a clue about.

I don't know the people on RSS-DEV personally but it's hard to imagine that
anyone deserves to be labeled a 'geek' and 'clueless' during a technical
discussion, unless you really mean to get personal. Name calling is
generally what people resort to when they can't make their point.

> Their spec is boring.

Another value judgement that doesn't have anything to do the technical
merits of what you (or they) are trying to accomplish.

> It won't run in a lot of environments.

And neither does XML-RPC. Sure, it runs in a bunch, but it sure doesn't run
everywhere and it certainly isn't for non-programmers. RSS is for
non-programmers. RSS 0.9 and 0.91 were great, but it has to grow. Two-way,
XML-RPC based publish-and-subscribe sure isn't an 'evolution' of RSS, it's
also grand departure.

> It's studly, they own RSS they say (Guha is on board) so let them try to
own it,
> go forward, do their best to excite the content to go with them.

Another! value judgement, and again unproductive. I haven't seen anyone on
RSS-DEV claim it's a studly or sexy spec. If they had been trying for
something like that, why not go whole-heartedly towards RDF and throw in all
kinds of other X-technologies?

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

He never said nor implied it and constantly advocates open discussion. And
the discussion on RSS-DEV is completely open yet I don't see you listed as a
member (if I missed it, let me know). And you've repeatedly rejected his
entrieaties to explain your point of view.

> 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.

If that's so, how come you haven't tried to convince those working in
RSS-DEV of your point of view? In watching your past posts to this list, I
see no arguments about the merits of your point of view, only your wish list
and your personal judgements about others' differing points of view. No
debate, no counter-proposals, no understanding or appreciation of their
efforts, no recognition of their successes, goals, failures, or
shortcomings.

> So sad, because there will be two RSS 1.0s.
> So confusing, so embarassing.
> (And a waste of time!)
> See you in the market.

That sounds neither cooperative nor open minded. And nothing is more a waste
of time than that kind of sniping.

Don't you think discussion is better served without all your hyperbole?

Per.

[my opinion is my own]