Re: The Name of RSS 1.1

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:12:03 -0000, rcade <rcade-/[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> As an RSS 2.0 geek, I am surprised to come here and find no pushback
> to the choice of the name for this new format. It has a different root
> element from RSS 1.0 and is not backwards compatible with any other
> syndication format.

The lack of pushback is due in part to RSS 1.0 and RSS 1.1 both being
defined with RDF, which gives them an unambiguous logical
interpretation, effectively a data model. The languages are compatible
within this model. The XML syntax (the root element etc) are of
considerably less significance that in RSS 2.0, which has no data
model as such beyond what is defined in the spec itself and implied by
the hierarchical structure of XML documents.

To put it another way, the syndication application model has a channel
comprising a series of items, each item composed of content and
metadata. No root element.

> Shouldn't you be giving consideration to choosing a different name for
> the format?

The name already has around 9 incompatible versions, I doubt one more
will make a big difference, although I do hope consideration is being
given all the same. RDF Serial Syndication?

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/