Aaron Swartz wrote:

> Oh, I definitely know what you mean. But here's how I see it:

> Writers:
> 1) Use an automated RSS creator
> 2) Use a web-based RSS creator with a nice interface
> 2) Use a converter from the simple format to the more complex

> Readers:
> 1) Use a pre-built RSS parser (like XML::RSS for Perl)
> 2) Use a down-converter to a simpler format
> 3) Ignore the new additions and just use the old stuff

These sorts of assumptions are self fulfilling to a degree. If you write a
spec assuming that some users won't interact with it then they won't.

This limits the number of people that will use the format.

Look at VRML. Aside from the other problems it had it suffered from a lack
on understanding of the desires and needs of casual or less experienced
users.

And in the end I think this killed it more effectively than any other
problem it had.

Compare that to HTML.

People want to (and should) understand the technologies that they use. So
when you build a format that puts required namespace declarations in the
<channel> tag then I think you've gone down a path that isn't going to be
followed by as many people.

So I guess it depends on what you want to build. A format for specialist use
or a format for broad usage.


--

If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.


email: zac@...
WWW: http://www.pixelgeek.com/