Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Dave Winer scripsit:
> Reading your last paragraph, it would have been good if the RDF advocates
> had recognized the work that had gone into RSS before they tried to hijack
> it. To this day they don't recognize it. Look at the design of RSS 1.0 and
> how disrespectfully it treats 0.91, which to this day dwarves its installed
> base.
One could equally well say that RSS 0.91 hijacks the RDF-compliant RSS 0.9.
A plague o' both your houses. My company supports both.
> If RDF wants to be considered, it should make a thoughtful proposal -- not
> be the bull in a china shop that it has been.
Standards have neither wants, nor proposals, nor rudeness.
--
A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: jcowan@r...]
Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev]
"Your verse would be sweeter http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If it only had metre http://www.reutershealth.com
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan." [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay
|
