From: Dave Winer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 21 2000 - 17:16:26 PDT
Uhhh, this is exactly the kind of entanglement I want to avoid.
1. I don't think this is personal.
2. I am indeed annoyed by your choosing to call your proposed spec "RSS
1.0", which is now "the emergence of RSS 1.0". Add to my annoyance, my
confusion. Is it a proposal or has it emerged?
3. The other people involved, who I have been talking about with for a lot
longer than I have been talking with you, know what I want to do. I've
posted it ad nauseum over and over and over. I got my answer. We don't want
to do it your way. And we think this is RSS 1.0. That's a pretty good
4. Your name got dragged into it by Dale, Rael, Edd, and yourself as
justification for taking complete control of the future of RSS. So don't
blame me if it's personal, get out of the hotseat by clearly saying you
don't own it. While I didn't get the clear answer I was looking for, I am
satisfied that that justification for your taking control is no longer on
the table. It never should have been on the table at all, imho.
5. You can do whatever you want, probably, but don't expect it to get swept
under the rug. If you come to the table with an attitude of compromise, you
might be surprised that we can all quickly get back to work making more cool
software and writing docs and aggregators and tools.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guha" <email@example.com>
To: "Dave Winer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: What is RDF?
> There are a couple of points I would like to make.
> (a) You seem to have issues with XML namespaces, RDF, etc. It would be
> good to raise questions, point out shortcomings, etc. of the technical
> issues. There was a lot of that during the development of xmlns and rdf.
> What is different between that and this discussion is that this
> seems focussed on the people behind the technologies and their motives.
> It is unclear to me how this discussion will increase our understanding of
> the technology. It would be good to return to old fashioned technical
> flame wars ...
> (b) You seem annoyed at the emergence of RSS 1.0. You suggest
> that it was somehow inappropriate for OReilly, Dan Brickley, Edd,
> myself and others to propose RSS 1.0 without getting your blessing first.
> Following your line of reasoning, it was inappropriate for Microsoft
> to start doing work on HTML. After all, Netscape had been doing
> it for over a year and a half before MS got into it seriously. And
> should not have done it because ...
> If there is any entity which has a modicum of a right to cry foul
> wrt RSS 1.0, it is Netscape, not you. If you had wanted a format
> that was all your own, that no one else can do much with, you
> should never have started using the term RSS. When you decided
> to do that, you ran the risk of this happening.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2000 - 17:25:03 PDT