Why formats like RSS 2.0 Create Extra Work
The roadmap actually encourages risk, but some people always seem to want to have their ideas accepted without taking the risk. They think they can make something better than RSS and shouldn't have to go through the same vetting process that RSS itself went through. Now, it may be possible that after three years in the market, that RSS 2.0 could be radically improved, but the roadmap says that no person or group of people has the exclusive right to improve it, and that no one can interfere with the stability of the platform. That's no different if you work for a small company or large, or don't work for a company at all.
He's referring obliquely to the RSS advisory board, (which has a public mailing list here) - which is trying to nail down a few things that are ambiguous in the spec (if you can call it that) for RSS. For instance:
- What should you expect to find in the <description> field?
- Is one enclosure the maximum?
- Is markup allowed, not allowed, or optional in the <title> element?
Those aren't things that have gone through a "vetting" process; they are things that tool developers have suffered with for years, and - if Winer has his way - we'll continue to suffer with. RSS is marginally better defined than OPML and MetaWebLog API (this page 404's at the moment), which are other underspecified formats that Winer has produced. There's a reason Atom exists, and that reason is amply demonstrated every single time Dave speaks on the subject.
Comments
atom uptake
[Conrad Ruckem] February 22, 2006 12:39:17.319
why do you care about rss when you could use the 'much better' atom?
Because...
[ James Robertson] February 22, 2006 12:53:15.285
Comment by James Robertson
As an aggregator developer, I have to care about RSS.
OIC
[Conrad Ruckem] February 22, 2006 13:11:57.963
maybe if rogers c likes you you cn be one of his lap dogs.
Sheesh
[ James Robertson] February 22, 2006 14:00:19.482
Comment by James Robertson
Geez Conrad, did you think up that clever comment all by yourself, or did you need help on the big words?
It's good to see someone discuss the real issues of RSS 2.0 in practice
[McD McBlog] February 22, 2006 16:11:53.863
Dave Winer's got multiple faces.
The public face that decries the potential for RSS to be subverted and the face that emerges on the RSS-Public Yahoo mail group.
It's nice to see a blog that addresses the issue of clarifiying some glaring holes in the RSS 2.0 spec and doesn't just amplify the Winer "megaphone" of fear and distrust. Thanks for the clear statement of the most pressing issues. Rogers Cadenhead (dozens of developer's and even Sam Ruby for that matter) are moving forward based upon a very open process. Dave just wants to freeze his legacy and throw mud. The clarifications to be addressed are trivial and simply make it easier to make software that interoperates well. With MS and Apple moving into this space some clarity is essential. otherwise we'll get de facto specs based upon the volume of the OS that the biggest players ship. That has never been optimal for all parties... they slip too many extras into the cracks. They have the resources to drive adoption and break the behaviors of the smaller players. Wait too long and it's fait accomplit.
On ther Yahoo group Dave has advised the group that he'll be making phhone calls to the RSS Board to tell them to resign. If anyone else did that... campaigned in private for RSS Board restructuring or abandonment Dave would have them pilloried in the b-verse public square. RSS was an oligarchy for dave's vanity... it needs to be a democracy (for developers please).
For me the most pressing issue IS the ability for developer's to discuss and specify the dark areas to advance the standard with some solid spec's.
Lap Dogs
[Rogers Cadenhead] February 22, 2006 16:24:57.458
I like James a lot -- one of these days I'm going to learn SmallTalk and see how objects were meant to be oriented. But I'm not letting him sit in my lap.