• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:30:26 -0500

Thomas B. Passin writes:

 > Yes, but ... What can be good is to anticipate what you think is
 > likely to come and then to make sure the design can support it when
 > you do decide to implement.

RSS 1.0 gets that for free through its use of Namespaces and RDF.  It
has a well-defined path for backwards-compatible future upgrades, and
new features will always be easy to distinguish from current ones.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• References:
  • Since XML.Com is unbiased
    • From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>
  • Re: Since XML.Com is unbiased
    • From: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>
  • RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
• Next by Date: re: We need an XPath API
• Previous by thread: Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
• Next by thread: Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread