From: Gregory Alan Bolcer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 08:23:53 PDT
o Simplify it into a core set of concepts so that any old
Web developer can start doing useful things without having to
take a 10 week course in XML namespaces, memorizing Dublic Core,
trying to figure out the meaning of "semantic" (joke), and
allow a graceful engagement of features.
Who's the target user, who benefits from it?
> o It's fine exactly as it is, don't change a thing.
> o Add a few elements so it can become richer. It's a maturing format with a
> large installed base, it needs to grow slowly to fit the needs of content
> developers and aggregators, but keep it simple, that's the biggest thing
> it's got going for it.
> o Add "semantic sugar" for XML Namespaces so developers can use the Dublin
> Core and create their own vocabularies, even if it makes RSS more complex
> and the documentation harder to find. This is a good thing to do because it
> avoids silly innovations like the "blink" tag, as happened in the browser
> wars between Microsoft and Netscape.
> o Add namespaces as above and add required elements that make it part of
> RDF, so computer scientists can build new kinds of databases and search
> engines that will do dramatic new things, not just with syndicated Web
> content, but all kinds of information.
> o I don't have an opinion about how RSS should evolve.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 08:30:58 PDT