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

fork

Author:calvin@xmission.com
Posted:9/11/2000; 8:24:27 AM
Topic:fork
Msg #:21170
Prev/Next:21169 / 21171

Okay, before I say anything else, let me just say I don't know much about RSS, and I don't really care ;). I'm just tired of hearing about the he said/she said/I meant. It sounds really tragic/urgent/exciting, when it's just a spec. (Jan Brady: "boring boring boring")

So, if the namespace folk really want name spaces and RDF, and they are not going to budge, and Dave and company really wants to keep it simple, why not fork it?

It's open, so fork it. Instead of trying to create the middle road, take the low road that follows the river, and they can take the high road that explains the universe. (No doubt, Scripting News will flow through their spec as soon as it's done.) Why struggle so much when it seems really clear the differences are fundamental?

One camp wants Namespaces and RDF, and that is not going to change. The other camp wants to keep it simple, meaning no Namespaces or RDF. These are mutually exclusive goals.

Therefore they are incompatable, and one must be excluded to achieve a single spec.

The only way I've seen of getting them to fit on Scripting News is for the Namespace group to give up and keep RSS simple. That is the bulk of the tone on Scripting News. Are they really ever going to do this? Seriously?

So, fork before they do and create some mindshare behind the new simple RSS. Share the love and nice words for their lofty goals and help if you can but please stop fighting when it seems the only way for someone to win, is for someone to lose. And if simple RSS is the losing group, ever more reason to fork!

later

-calvin

ps. HTML is a simplified fork of SGML; thank god, SGML is a mess...but it can describe almost anything!

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:38 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.