<snip>
So what people 'believe' is irrelevant. Facts are stubborn things.
Now, whether that's the best mechanism for extensibility? That's a good question. I'd have to say that the simple "It's worked so far" argument carries a lot of weight.
That's a good point, though calling them "modules" is kind of overblown. A more interesting question might be which common extensions would be invalid RDF in RSS 1.0. Almost all extensions seem to consist of a single element with a text value. RSS 1.0 seems quite popular, so I wouldn't say the victory is decisive for either approach.
Well, that raises a question - I don't know the answer to it though. Do most aggregators that deal with RSS 1.0 really do RDF, or do they just treat it as a variant syndication format? I know that I didn't bother creating a distinct ability to deal with RDF in BottomFeeder - I'd be curious as to how others dealt with this one.
Robert Sayre
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
Cincom Smalltalk User Conference!
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?entry=3275631428
