On 15/08/2005, at 5:09 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
I'm interested in getting things working,
not playing the syndication format advocacy game.
Not sure how feed-history will work without a unique id.
? Sorry, you lost me there.
There's a difference between promoting multiple syndication formats
and accommodating the reality that there are many.
Well, since any extension element (that I know of) is valid RSS2 or
Atom, I'm confused as to why "extensions that can be used in any
format" is necessary.
I wanted a neutral place/namespace for them, where the extension can
be separated from the back-and-forth of what format to use. Put it
this way; how would it go over here if I came along and suggested
using an existing RSS element for some functionality in Atom? It's
all just syntactic sugar, of course, but a clear separation avoids
the politics and makes the status of the extension clearer to users.
I'm guessing extensions "that will work equally well in all versions
of RSS" must be valid RDF. This feels like crypto-RDF-advocacy to
me,
which seems a little pointless.
Er, no.
So, they must be valid RDF, or no? Pardon my crypto comment, that was
a little over the top.
I'm not going to be incredibly strict about it; some RSS 1.0 people
might not like non-RDF syntax getting into RDF 1.0, but I think it's
a fact of life.
I like the RDF model; hate the XML syntax. So, you can accuse me of
being anything *but* an RDF/XML syntax advocate :)
This isn't an atompub draft, it's a draft to the attention of the
atompub WG (hence draft-nottingham-atompub).
Well, you could still bring it to the attention of the WG by emailing
us, but the drafts don't purport to solve any of the problems in the
charter. I feel it's (unintentionally) intellectually dishonest, since
most folks will assume it's an Atompub draft. But, that's just my
humble opinion.
Sorry, it's an IETF convention; I assumed that it was well-known (but
then again, many/most IETF conventions aren't, so I should have known
better!)
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
