Slashdot Mirror

It's not like anyone supports one at the expense of any other format/flavour.
I'm dying to see a website that supports all the nine incompatible RSS versions + RSS 3.0 + ATOM. Well ... you can always be the first to do it.

The truth is that supporting one or two formats will always be done in at the expense of all the other "flavors". The real problem with RSS is really not technical, rather "administrative". Who can convince this guy that the world would be better off without his new and incompatible RSS version? Nobody (not even Microsoft :D ) will ever keep up with every guy deciding to write the next RSS version. This is why ATOM is so cool with IETF tailoring its specification. This assures that the new versions will be coherent and (as much as possible) backwards compatible. RSS vs ATOM is really like pre-W3C-HTML vs HTML 4. Yes, W3C released other specifications (XHTML) but they were never ment to make HTML 4 obsolete. Nothing could.

It's not like anyone supports one at the expense of any other format/flavour.
I'm dying to see a website that supports all the nine incompatible RSS versions + RSS 3.0 + ATOM. Well ... you can always be the first to do it.

The truth is that supporting one or two formats will always be done in at the expense of all the other "flavors". The real problem with RSS is really not technical, rather "administrative". Who can convince this guy that the world would be better off without his new and incompatible RSS version? Nobody (not even Microsoft :D ) will ever keep up with every guy deciding to write the next RSS version. This is why ATOM is so cool with IETF tailoring its specification. This assures that the new versions will be coherent and (as much as possible) backwards compatible. RSS vs ATOM is really like pre-W3C-HTML vs HTML 4. Yes, W3C released other specifications (XHTML) but they were never ment to make HTML 4 obsolete. Nothing could.

For example RSS is being upgraded even at this moment.

RSS with its 9+1 incompatible versions is hardly a standard for anything. It is a huge pain for a implementer to decide which versions to support. Microsoft decided to support (one version of) RSS for now because it has been around for longer and we know how reticent is Microsoft to everythig new. So, for Microsot, RSS is of course better then nothing.

However, it is just wrong to say that the format war is over and RSS has won. Atom is a coherent standard now being finished under the umbrella of the IETF , and it is just now just starting to catch. And it will, because many of us have had enough RSS bullshit. We already had a disscussion with the guy behind RSS 3.0 which convinced me that with guys like him writing the RSS specs (just for the love of writing), RSS is REALLY DOOMED.

Authentication sounds more like an API thing rather than a feature of the format. If you care to elaborate, email the editor

My, my, RSS is really balkanizing right in front of my eyes. Especially since there's now two formats called RSS 3; one is not serious though, the other pretends not to, both are a great big comedic circus.

How long, oh Lord Berners-Lee, you let our children wait? When shall your Consortium and your TaskForce drop us the blessed Atom 1.0? Already allow the Drafts to turn into Standards! Soon! Oh so very soon!

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't know that Atom was nearing completion. I wouldn't be lying if I said that I didn't know that Atom has become a candidate recommendation (or whatever the term is) or that I announced it on this day because of it. As for the Initial Draft, it could be termed the Alpha version and is available on the site under http://www.rss3.org/specifications.html#archive. It was simply given to review to several people before announcing it publicly.

Is any of you satisfied with the explanation that the world needs a new RSS standard because the other versions are not well documented?

I did agree with that, a while ago. Then a group of people got together, created a new specification, that used a different name (as the RSS 2.0 specification suggests), worked with the community, put the specification through the IETF standardisation process, and the result is Atom 1.0.

So the real question isn't "why don't you improve RSS 2.0?", the real question is "somebody's already done what you claim to want to do, and called it Atom - so why is this effort not entirely redundant?".

He avoids answering that question on his weblog:

...it is my belief that RSS 2, given further documentation and reworking, can compete with Atom. Why do I want to compete with Atom? That would be too long to explain here, unfortunately.

Presumably he finds the Atom standard insufficient in some way, and yet there's no trace of him participating in the community effort to create it. He states elsewhere that he had no idea the IETF were approving Atom as a standard, so how he intends to compete with a format he doesn't know much about is beyond me.

So basically, you'd swear, under penalty of perjury, that you were completely unaware of a development of major significance for your #1 competitor, that's been pending for months?

If that's not true, then you are dishonest. If it is true, then you are out of touch with the communiity that you claim to serve. Either way, it's not good.

And what's up with this?

Once the requirements page is set, the creation of the standard, complying to the Requirements stated below, will start with producing the Initial Draft (or the "Community Draft") for private reviews purposes. After the necessary changes, the First Working Draft will be published after which the First Call for Comments will be made public.

So the "community draft" is private? How can you call that a "community" anything?

Spec Releashed, Slashdot Commenters Gone Wild

Yeah, that was my first thought, but he mentions Dave "RSS 2" as an editor and says he's had a period of private review in his process list.

Where? I see Dave mentioned a lot on that website, but nothing so far that indicates Dave even knows about this. For example:

The current standard, RSS 3 Class (which engulfs RSS 3 Lite, RSS 3 Full, RCDL and RRDL), is based on RSS 2.0, which was offered by the Berkmen Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School under the License, authored by Dave Winer (other accredited authors: Roger Cadenhead, Adam Curry and Steve Zellers). This is a derivative work which is meant to replace the 2.0 version.

This sounds like Dave's got something to do with RSS 3 at first glance, but in actual fact, it merely says that he co-authored the RSS 2.0 specification, and that this guy, Jonathan Avidan, wrote a specification that is based on that specification. Dave's listed as "a relevant link", but only with respect to him authoring the RSS 2 specification. He's mentioned again, but once more, only that Jonathan Avidan is indebted to him for writing the RSS 2 specification:

For informative purposes, the RSS Version 2.0.1 specification can be found here and is attributed to Dave Winer, amongst others. This is a derivative work and is indebted to their genius and efforts.

The closest that website comes to claiming "Dave Winer approval", is in the FAQ. However, that's a copy of Dave's history of RSS, except for the fact that the original copy doesn't mention RSS 3.0 at all. It just looks like he copied that page, stuck "According to Dave Winer" at the beginning, and "RSS 3 begins development" at the end.

Remember, Dave considers RSS to be "finished". From the RSS 2.0 specification:

Therefore, the RSS spec is, for all practical purposes, frozen at version 2.0.1. We anticipate possible 2.0.2 or 2.0.3 versions, etc. only for the purpose of clarifying the specification, not for adding new features to the format. Subsequent work should happen in modules, using namespaces, and in completely new syndication formats, with new names.

Yeah, that was my first thought, but he mentions Dave "RSS 2" as an editor and says he's had a period of private review in his process list.

Where? I see Dave mentioned a lot on that website, but nothing so far that indicates Dave even knows about this. For example:

The current standard, RSS 3 Class (which engulfs RSS 3 Lite, RSS 3 Full, RCDL and RRDL), is based on RSS 2.0, which was offered by the Berkmen Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School under the License, authored by Dave Winer (other accredited authors: Roger Cadenhead, Adam Curry and Steve Zellers). This is a derivative work which is meant to replace the 2.0 version.

This sounds like Dave's got something to do with RSS 3 at first glance, but in actual fact, it merely says that he co-authored the RSS 2.0 specification, and that this guy, Jonathan Avidan, wrote a specification that is based on that specification. Dave's listed as "a relevant link", but only with respect to him authoring the RSS 2 specification. He's mentioned again, but once more, only that Jonathan Avidan is indebted to him for writing the RSS 2 specification:

For informative purposes, the RSS Version 2.0.1 specification can be found here and is attributed to Dave Winer, amongst others. This is a derivative work and is indebted to their genius and efforts.

The closest that website comes to claiming "Dave Winer approval", is in the FAQ. However, that's a copy of Dave's history of RSS, except for the fact that the original copy doesn't mention RSS 3.0 at all. It just looks like he copied that page, stuck "According to Dave Winer" at the beginning, and "RSS 3 begins development" at the end.

Remember, Dave considers RSS to be "finished". From the RSS 2.0 specification:

Therefore, the RSS spec is, for all practical purposes, frozen at version 2.0.1. We anticipate possible 2.0.2 or 2.0.3 versions, etc. only for the purpose of clarifying the specification, not for adding new features to the format. Subsequent work should happen in modules, using namespaces, and in completely new syndication formats, with new names.

Yeah, that was my first thought, but he mentions Dave "RSS 2" as an editor and says he's had a period of private review in his process list.

Where? I see Dave mentioned a lot on that website, but nothing so far that indicates Dave even knows about this. For example:

The current standard, RSS 3 Class (which engulfs RSS 3 Lite, RSS 3 Full, RCDL and RRDL), is based on RSS 2.0, which was offered by the Berkmen Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School under the License, authored by Dave Winer (other accredited authors: Roger Cadenhead, Adam Curry and Steve Zellers). This is a derivative work which is meant to replace the 2.0 version.

This sounds like Dave's got something to do with RSS 3 at first glance, but in actual fact, it merely says that he co-authored the RSS 2.0 specification, and that this guy, Jonathan Avidan, wrote a specification that is based on that specification. Dave's listed as "a relevant link", but only with respect to him authoring the RSS 2 specification. He's mentioned again, but once more, only that Jonathan Avidan is indebted to him for writing the RSS 2 specification:

For informative purposes, the RSS Version 2.0.1 specification can be found here and is attributed to Dave Winer, amongst others. This is a derivative work and is indebted to their genius and efforts.

The closest that website comes to claiming "Dave Winer approval", is in the FAQ. However, that's a copy of Dave's history of RSS, except for the fact that the original copy doesn't mention RSS 3.0 at all. It just looks like he copied that page, stuck "According to Dave Winer" at the beginning, and "RSS 3 begins development" at the end.

Remember, Dave considers RSS to be "finished". From the RSS 2.0 specification:

Therefore, the RSS spec is, for all practical purposes, frozen at version 2.0.1. We anticipate possible 2.0.2 or 2.0.3 versions, etc. only for the purpose of clarifying the specification, not for adding new features to the format. Subsequent work should happen in modules, using namespaces, and in completely new syndication formats, with new names.

It's explained in the terminology page and the terminology section in the spec. In short - normative equals "for implementation", "non-normative" means "of recommendation or suggestion nature" and "informative" means, well, "for further details only".

It's explained in the terminology page and the terminology section in the spec. In short - normative equals "for implementation", "non-normative" means "of recommendation or suggestion nature" and "informative" means, well, "for further details only".

This page then maybe needs a fix.

The RSS 3 Requirements Page: General RSS 3 Requirements:
6. The Standard should strive to remain as backwards compatible as possible with the RSS 2.0 standard

For what purpose is the RSS Version 3 standard necessary?

The 0.9x class of standards is outdated and underdocumented. The 2.0 class is highly underdocumented, filled with unnecessary features though lacking others which could be useful. The RSS 3 standard is supposed to extensively document the standard, to expand where expansion is needed and to remove unnecessary features.

Is any of you satisfied with the explanation that the world needs a new RSS standard because the other versions are not well documented? What on earth stops him (Jonathan Avidan) from documenting them properly?

I get the feeling that this is a practical joke/troll by Jonathan Avidan - the person who is editing this new specification, the person who maintains the website linked to, and who submitted this article to Slashdot.

Yeah, the RSS 2 specification could do with cleaning up and clarification. No, it's not feasible because of too many people doing stupid things like announcing new versions of RSS all on their own and fragmenting the community.

From the FAQ:

Who designs the RSS Version 3 standard?

Jonathan Avidan managers this site and edits the specifications according to common requests and open debates held in the Message Board and via email.

Follow the link. It's a new message board with no posts.

There is zero community behind this "standard", it's just a spec some guy decided to write of his own accord. In contrast, a real community effort, Atom, has just reached 1.0 and is standardized by the IETF. Nobody should take this "RSS 3.0" seriously.