From: S. Mike Dierken (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 08:30:12 PDT
I think you've got most of the issues there. Sounds like a good solution to
a current problem - not too early & not too late, not too hard & not too
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 8:15 AM
> To: S. Mike Dierken; foRK
> Subject: Re: Why is RDF hard?
> >What is the relationship between RSS and the old CDF?
> That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer.
> I only have my own recollection of CDF. We supported it in
> Frontier as soon
> as it came out.
> Were there any tools that did anything with CDF? I'm not aware of
> any. That
> of course doesn't mean there weren't any. ;->
> RSS's model was different. CDF viewed a website as a static thing, it
> described the pages on the site, and never changed. RSS took an opposite
> view. It said a website is a *flow* of stories. An RSS rendering of a site
> might change many times over a day. That, imho, made RSS much more
> RSS was backed by Netscape, not Microsoft. Some people don't like
> I do, but as they say ymmv.
> RSS was immediately supported by one of the most active news sites on the
> net, and then supported by tools with thousands of users.
> CDF was early. The Web was still a mystery when CDF came out. RSS came out
> at a time when web pubs were looking for something new to do.
> RSS was supported by an aggregator from day one. A second aggregator came
> online within weeks.
> Those are just off the top of my head.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 08:35:11 PDT