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

Re: RSS name cutting and drying

Author:David McCusker
Posted:9/4/2000; 3:40:14 PM
Topic:scriptingNews outline for 9/2/2000
Msg #:20849 (In response to 20813)
Prev/Next:20848 / 20850

Ken MacLeod: It's still not so cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.

I did that to be poignant and provoke terse and pointed corrections. I'd have to say a lot more about the word "involuntary" in my post to add shades of gray I seemed to be missing.

I'd noticed a pronounced absense of negotiation over the naming problem, as if the folks who came up with the proposed RSS 1.0 had responded to Dave by asking coldly, "Who are you, again?" It was the coldness that had a really bad feel to it, provoking my ire.

By the way, you're doing a fine and human job of discussing the issue in a style I think is very nice. I only really think more responsiveness is required from the RDF+NS folks. The apparent "I don't know you" reaction suggests bad faith, which folks should scramble to avoid.

Ken MacLeod: It has been suggested that both forks use a different name.

That's fair if there are actually two new evolving specs, if both sides agree to sign off. It only seems wrong if one side chooses unilaterally, especially if seeming to arrogate sole ownership to itself. It's better to part ways amicably than to dump an inconvenient past partner. Folks who dump others inspire less future trust.

If Dave wants RSS to denote an older and mostly unchanging spec, it's rather fair to let the older spec keep the name alone. However, if the RDF+NS folks decided to go to a new name, they would have the right to ask a favor (or negotiate conditions) of whoever keeps the old name. In a tussle, the loser of a struggle gets compensated when we play by win-win rules. We don't want outright losers, because it's bad for trust in cooperative games.

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:31 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.