Change in RSS 2.0
Dave Winer: This morning an esoteric update to the RSS feed generator in Radio. We now omit the xmlns attribute on the rss element because some parsers, especially homegrown parsers, can't correctly interpret it. For those interested in more detail on this, I explain why here. Now, of course, all such homegrown parsers which upgraded to support the new RSS 2.0 namespace are broken. As Shelley said, quick hacks are not the solution.
Dave continues to say, I believe Sam's feed is not generated with Radio. http://radio.weblogs.com/0101679/rss.xml clearly states "RSS generated by Radio UserLand v8.0.8". Those that care to can see the code here.
I believe I have said, and continue to say, plenty on this subject.
I think Dave likes to tweak me sometimes.
The concept of "last names" is just not that complicated. Nor particularly groundbreaking in late 2002.
Posted by Sam Ruby at
I've asked you at least twice to say yay or nay to the RSS I was producing, and you've not said nay, you have said yay, so I'm not tweaking you Sam, I'm just backing off and waiting for you and others to make up your minds and stop arguing among yourselves.
It's amazing to me how readily people will blame me for their inaction or indecision. Morbus is doing it as is Ben Hammersley. All this stuff was up for review two weeks ago. Not a peep. So if I was so wrong, so were all of you. Right?? Isn't that the point of putting things up for review, to get the benefit of all the minds? I think perhaps some people (not you) had other agendas. I'll never really know, and honestly I care less and less every day. This supposed community isn't really about producing software, I've been part of communities that do this, and as Lloyd Bentsen said about Dan Quayle, this ain't it. (Paraphrased.)
Anyway Scripting News is my testbed now, Radio feeds use 2.0 features but not namespaces. I'm comfortable that we have enough flow out there to get to the bottom of this in a somewhat reasonable period of time. If not, then namespaces in RSS is no more or less confusing than it was before this process started and life goes on hopefully. I think your possum could care less. ;->
Posted by Dave Winer at
As I said... The only outright omission I see in the RSS 2.0 specification is that it does not mention the namespace to be used for the elements described in the document..
Should I have attempted to expend stop energy over this one little item, or should I have had confidence that these details will work themselves out over time?
I opted for the latter. Go ahead, shoot me for it. I hear that opossoms are good at 'removing' dead critters, so to speak.
Posted by Sam Ruby at
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
"The only outright omission I see in the RSS 2.0 specification is that it does not mention the namespace to be used for the elements described in the document.."
Anyway, there seems to be some disagreement over that. I'll be the last person to shoot anyone. I'd love to get some resolution on this, fix the typos, call it 2.0.1 and move on.
Next week there's a conference in town, and the week after I'm going to Denver, so figuring this out in the next few days would be great.
Posted by Dave Winer at
Relax... quickly reving the spec at this point is more likely to create the impression of instability and that people should wait.
Posted by Sam Ruby at
Got it. Moving pretty quick today Sam. I corrected the statement about your feed on Scripting News.
You're right quick hacks are not the solution. Also, you could have said something a couple of days ago Sam, and didn't. At some point we were going to cross this river. Even the RDF folks support namespaces. Where is the prior art? Are we the first to go here? I doubt it. But perhaps we're the first to get into some dark nooks and crannies.
Posted by Dave Winer at