From rssfeeds@jmason.org Thu Sep 26 11:03:04 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D014816F03 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:03:03 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:03:03 +0100 (IST) Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8Q81bC06471 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:01:37 +0100 Message-Id: <200209260801.g8Q81bC06471@dogma.slashnull.org> To: yyyy@example.com From: scripting Subject: A productive thread Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 08:01:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; encoding=utf-8 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: URL: http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2002/09/25#aProductiveThread Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:18:04 GMT "rssflowersalignright"A productive thread[1] on RSS-DEV confronts the negativeness about RSS 2.0[2] head-on. This will go someplace interesting. I left a big hint there in the way the blogChannel module[3] is designed, patterned after the Syndication module[4] designed by the RDF folk. In other words, the place where they're expressing discomfort with RSS 2.0 is where they can make it their own. Lead. Instead of feeling disempowered, be powerful. At one point I saw clearly where the compromise between RSS 0.9x and 1.0 was. We could have gotten there in early 2001, so instead we get there in late 2002. So what, not a big deal. Think about how much better it will be _when we're all advocating the same format._ Visualize peace. That's basically what I did when I did the 2.0 spec. I know it's hard to swallow, but swallow anyway. If I did it, you can too. [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/message/4032 [2] http://backend.userland.com/rss [3] http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule [4] http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/