On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second - I just read 3 reviews of Atom (linked from Dave Winer's blog) > containing significant criticism, much of it valid. However the target > of these posts wasn't Atom itself, but the 'RSS 2.0 and Atom Compared' > doc (on the Wiki/Tim's snapshot). It does make sense to make the info > available in a friendly fashion, but in this case it seems to have > backfired.
I found the criticism pathetic. Don Park: "They used the roadmap to portray RSS as a deadend road." -- Uh, the point was that the IETF process allows bugfixing (Draft Standard, Full Standard) if absolutely necessary. The "Dave Winer process" does not allow for this. Tim's document is clear. "Sillyness followed by misinformation. HTML is not XML which is why HTML had to be escaped. They also failed to note that there are XHTML embedding issues." -- RSS2's description element can't contain XHTML. Once again, the point couldn't be more correct. "Both mentioned specs can be used in RSS 2.0 just fine." -- yeah, if you, um, standardize on how you're going to use them. Accurate once again. As for Alex Bosworth's post, a commenter said "This post is rubbish and way off base." I'm inclined to agree. Seems like a publicity stunt. Robert Sayre
