I find it extraordinarily sad that the RSS 0.94 development effort is happening across multiple weblogs and multiple comment threads and not here. So having...
Hi there, ... Looking great, thanks! A couple of comments on some small issues: - The <docs> elements contains a URL [1] that returns 401, Authorization ...
I've published a new draft of OCS version 0.5 for discussion purposes. I've incorporated feedback I've had over the past months and also taken note of the...
... If I may be radically flamboyant, it's: - so Dave Winer can continue to be the spearhead. - so Dave Winer can filter out sites and comments he doesn't care...
... Very nice. This looks great, also compared to the earlier versions, I especially like the standard formats and schedules. One thing I'm not sure I like...
... Thanks. ... What is required is a unique identifier for the document type. It's just an opaque literal really with no further meaning than 'this is the...
... You? Flamboyant? Say it ain't so! ... I too am greatly disappointed that, once again, Dave has decided to attempt to dictate a standard without having a...
... Dave, that's all fine and good, and I *agree* with the mentality behind it. But this is an RSS *specification* - specs live and thrive on threaded ...
I do have a DTD for my own flavor of RSS 0.94 - which I have been using for a couple months. Included is a category element for the channel, too. While I wrote...
Hi (Ian), ... Sorry to bug you again, but I think there are a few (new) typos in the 0.2 version spec. In section 3 the namespace URI contains "0.1", and this...
... Primarily, you are. Since you're not willing to take the discussion to mailing lists, there's no way I can find the time to read through every site you (or...
... fashion or ... Not answering for Morbus, But I think that he was simply trying to explain why a more open process for developing the standard would be ...
... fashion or ... The converstion method for the development of the specification is inappropriate. analogy: Try to create a document that requires the input...
... +1 ... +1 ... +1 ... +1 ... +1 ... +1 ... +1 ... +1 (I'd make it true for description as well, but I know others feel differently) ... As I recall the...
... rfc822 ... that ... I wholeheartedly agree. They were all exceptionall comments. -- Eric Vitiello [Perceive Designs] <http://www.perceive.net> Got Geek?...
First, a nit: "copyright" is one's "exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form", from which the author can then grant a...
... Dude, do you even read what I'm saying? You chose the web-based flavor, and there's no possible way I can make more time to participate in this ...
I think I agree with others that if I were coordinating the development of RSS 0.94, I would have a different style. However, Dave is managing this ...
If people have comments and questions on the spec, I will read them, and if appropriate comment or answer. I don't have time or energy to participate in vexing...
... In other words, "I'm your benevolent dictator, stop questioning me." I'm not asking vexations, nor what-ifs. I'm plainly stating: "I can't contribute in...
No Morbus in other words, if you want to do some work, let's do it. Dave ... From: "Morbus Iff" <morbus@...> To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com> Sent:...
... and to start us off, | refer the learned gentleman to Julian Bond's original message of this morning. All of which is good, and worthy of a response here....
... Agreed, but I worry that this may start confusing the "simple" of the "really simple syndication". I *do* want an RFC like spec, but I'd also want a dumbed...
... Than you Mark for getting away from meta-discussion about the process and getting back to the spec. And comments and discussion about that spec. ... The...
Julian, I think there's a disconnect. The copyright is for the writing, not the format. If you write a spec, which you can, it would have your copyright on it....
