2002-09-13
2002-09-12
2002-09-09
Yes, three years, and it seems like an eternity.
Dave Winer's primary argument in favour of the 0.9x flavour of RSS seems to be that it's simple, and if you compare an example of RSS 0.94 with one of RSS 1.0, true enough, the 1.0 does look marginally more complicated. But RSS 1.0 covers pretty much all that might be needed for any kind of syndication. Winer's proposing that modular support be included in his v. 2.0 in the form of namespaces, but presumably this will make the specification a little more complicated (the argument "but anything's allowed, so it must be easier" is nicely covered by Aaron's RSS 3.0).
RSS is intended to provide metadata in a machine-readable form. To me it makes sense to use a general format that has been designed for the purpose, rather than an ad hoc format focussed solely on publishing.
Why aim for dead-end lowest-common-denominator support, when something open-ended is available?
Personally I think it's likely that developer support will tend towards the RSS/RDF format as people start to realise its potential, and particularly when Semantic Web applications really start appearing.
That might take another 3 years though....
Uses PHP & MySQL, and (it seems) an external Jena parser.
