Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.


Author:David McCusker
Posted:9/4/2000; 11:06:39 AM
Topic:scriptingNews outline for 9/2/2000
Msg #:20811 (In response to 20798)
Prev/Next:20810 / 20812

Dave Winer: I'm also looking for other people who are not directly involved to review the specs and various public statements and render an opinion on the naming of the new spec.

I'm not directly involved. In fact I don't want to be involved. :-) But it's clear to me you were dispossessed by the naming, and very intentionally so by the folks who chose the name. I'm sensitive to nuances in dispossession.

It's not clear reviewing the specs would help pass judgment on the naming issue, since names are usually more relevant in the surrounding context that distinguishes a thing from what it's not.

Only two main things matter in gauging your dispossesion. First, you were a voluntary party to an earlier version of RSS with certain characteristics. Second, you were involuntary party to the re-use of the old name for a new (but somewhat related) version with strikingly different technical characteristics. Case closed. They owe you. If they don't pay, then they suck.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:30 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.