On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:49:12 +0000, Bill de h�ra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Danny Ayers wrote: > > > Yes and no - there is demand for this kind of thing, is the RSS 1.0 > > community the same as the RDF community? There's a lot of additions > > around there... Whatever, even with RSS 2.0 there's Easy News Topics > > and all the stuff associated with media (enclosures + Yahoo's > > extensions) as good examples. > > Is the RSS1.0 community relevant, given RSS1.1? I'm sincere in asking this.
Dunno really. There are an awful lot of RSS 1.0 feeds out there - you've got one, I've got one. If rss-dev give the green light to 1.1, I'll probably changeover before long, though the extensions (FOAF, Geo) I've got in place aren't likely to change. > > My concern there is with extension development outside of the RDF > > community. Without some uniform interpretation of the attributes > > outside of the context of an Atom document, there's scope for unwanted > > interactions. Assigning the things global names (URIs), even if they > > aren't explicitly expressed in Atom documents seems a low cost > > solution. > > > > > >>>Does this help? > >> > >>Yes, but I think it can be dealt with as outlined above, unless I'm > >>missing something. > > > > > > Non-RDF extensions. > > As I've said, I'm not seeing the demand for uniform evaluation outside > an RDF context. Outside of the [insert Brayism about architects], demand for uniformity is generally thin on the ground around syndication (<guid>s ring a bell?). But that doesn't reduce its benefits, usually uniformity leads to a net cost reduction, don't you reckon? Standards and all that? Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
