The proponents of RSS 1.0 appear to be so enamored of
RDF that they see the added complexity of an additional ,and
somewhat redundant, sequence of items as acceptable overhead.
Rael refers to this as the
I presume Dave is doing this because some people dont ever want to use namespaces. As long as such tags are optional, this dosent hurt anyone, just dont use them. It just makes RSS 2.0 more complete without namespaces.
Personally, I'm more likely to use admin:generatorAgent rather than the generator tag. But I fail to see why people cant just accept that generator is an optional tag and get on with using namespaces the way they like.
When I, as a budding and naive RSS producer, want to add information on the software creating my feed, now I have to choose between 'generator' and 'admin:generatorAgent', not to mention the option of using both. Using both also raises the issue of which tag has precedence to an RSS consuming app.
Issuing clear guidance in the spec on this issue would be good, but to eliminate opportunities for confusion would be better, IMO.
I understand that for reasons of backward compatibility, existing optional tags can't simply be removed from the spec (though they could be deprecated), but why add more confusion, when it doesn't seem to be necessary?
On Mark's and my todo list is to more precisely distinguish between things that are outright illegal and things that are merely bad practice. While such duplication is not clearly illegal, there are enough questions on the precedence rules between item...
Trackback from Sam Ruby
um hey, just give us something us little mouses can follow ...