Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 13:56, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:40:07 +0100, Sam Ruby <[email protected]>
wrote:
This problem is way worse with title, there the specs and consumers
(mostly) agree that it is plain text, yet the producers (mostly)
agree that it is entity encoded HTML. That's why you might see
things like AT&T in headlines.
The only way forward in situations like this is to start over with a
new format. People will never stop using RSS, but people who have a
need for the problems that Atom fixes will migrate. And consumers
will support both.
I think RSS5 could have worked actually given that consumers
presumably have some interoperability or can get aligned because of
the feeds already deployed. It was mostly for political reasons that
such an approach was abandoned though presumably also because it's
less hassle to simply start over and leave the mess to implementors.
(See also design motivations for e.g. XForms.)
FWIW, I agree. In retrospect, I think we should have done RSS5 despite
the objections of the steward of RSS. Having Atom didn't help feed
consumer apps that still need to sort out the RSS <title> disaster when
RSS is served to them.
/me mutters "Monday Morning Quarterbacks"[1].
- Sam Ruby
[1]
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861693759/monday_morning_quarterback.html
