Of RDF, RSS, and clumsy backpedalling
by Uche Ogbuji
In an XML-DEV message, Dave Winer says:
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
If RDF wants to be considered, it should make a thoughtful proposal -- not
be the bull in a china shop that it has been.
John Cowan responds:
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.
To which Dave Winer rejoins:
Yes, I've heard a lot of people say that, but it's not true.
0.90 was not in any way RDF-compliant.
At this point Danny Ayers jumps in:
see the cached version of Netscape's RSS) 0.9 spec:
If you still have any doubts, try copying the sample into
the W3C RDF validator:
A certain amount of FUD is to be expected from vendors that have staked
their reputation (and probably their dollars) on a different horse, but this
is remarkable. On xml-dev. I'm speechless.
To which Dave Winer makes response as follows:
What I meant of course is that RSS 0.90 was in no way a foundation for all
the dreams people have for RDF. It's basically an XML format, and not a very
widely supported one. Don't be confused. Dave
Am I the only one who did a double-take while ROTFL?
Just imagine what RSS could achieve if they quit these "discussions" that are happening all over the place (weblogs, mailing-lists etc.) and moved on hand-in-hand.
That *would* make sense and has been suggested numerous time, however neither side are willing to compromise.