| XML
About
Home
RSS
OPML
XML-RPC
SOAP
|
|
 |
|
Dave Winer's RSS 2.0 Political FAQ
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Dave Winer's RSS 2.0 Political FAQ
started 6/30/2003; 6:08:08 AM - last post 6/30/2003; 7:11:47 PM
|
|
Dave Winer - Dave Winer's RSS 2.0 Political FAQ 
6/30/2003; 6:08:08 AM (reads: 181945, responses: 1)
|
|
Question: Do you control RSS? Does UserLand? 
No to both questions. I wrote a specification for RSS 2.0 that was originally copyrighted by UserLand. But the company transferred the copyright to Harvard University, who has re-published it under a Creative Commons license. The company has always disclaimed any ownership of the format described by the specification.
Question: But I really meant Do you control the use of RSS?
Perhaps influence is a better word. I am a leader, but not the only one, of the RSS community. For example, Sam Ruby and Mark Pilgrim wrote an RSS validator that many people use. Their judgement is part of the implementation of the software, so they also have a lot of influence over how RSS is used.
However, my influence is quite limited. For example, I felt strongly that Movable Type and Blogger should implement RSS in exactly the same way that UserLand does. First I expressed this wish privately, then publicly. However it made no difference, Blogger and Movable Type didn't change the way they do RSS. If I controlled RSS, they wouldn't have had a choice.
Basically, I have the power, like anyone else, to say what I think, but I can't make people do what I think they should.
Question: Could someone else write a spec for RSS 2.0?
Yes, of course.
In the United States we have a Bill of Rights which among other things guarantees the right of free speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Many western countries and emerging democracies offer the same guarantee. So even if I wanted to stop people from writing a new spec (I don't) -- I couldn't.
Whether it's a good idea to write a new spec is a whole other question. There is a group of software developers working towards that, led by Rogers Cadenhead. I'm subscribed, and will help them however I can.
Question: What if I have a question that's not answered here?
Please post it as a comment in response to this weblog post. Only respectful non-personal questions will be answered, and only time-permitting. My goal in writing this FAQ is to help people understand how RSS politics works.
Question: What does "funky" mean in the context of RSS 2.0?
 A feed is funky if it uses extensions to provide information that can be expressed by core elements.
If everyone strives to not be funky, then it becomes trivially easy to write aggregators, and new entrants to the market can get in quickly and at low cost, and users get more choice.
If we were to go the opposite way, with every source of feeds inventing their own replacements for core RSS 2.0 elements, the cost to enter would become increasingly high, and it becomes more likely that programs will express compatibility in terms of products, not formats. Then you'd have to use one aggregator to read BBC feeds, for example, and another to read SF Chronicle feeds. So "funky" is anti-interop; and "not funky" is pro-interop.
I never wanted to have to define this, because I hoped the issue would go away, quickly. But the people who could have done something about it refused to, so the wound festered. The problem, imho, isn't the term, but the practice. People should try to follow the spec, and if they don't we should ask them to explain why.
BTW, I don't think it's cool to repeat information two or more times in a feed. That makes it more complicated to understand. Keep it simple. That's the value of RSS. Anyone who can understand a little HTML can understand RSS. That's important!
Bonus: Don Park illustrates funkyness in screen shots.
Question: Is RSS stuck? If so, why?
It is and it isn't. Here are some reasons why.
It's stuck because the RSS community is controlled by a small number of mail list flamers. A few people put themselves in the middle on the mail lists and express their opinions over and over, and ridicule those who differ, often attacking on a personal level. This has rendered the mail lists ineffective. Even new lists, even when they're moderated, descend into flames within days, chasing away people who want to get work done, and forcing those who remain to defend themselves. There are just a handful of people doing this, but they use flames as a filibuster, and it works. At times they coordinate, when one leaves, the next one takes over. I've watched their IRC chat channels where they plan these work-stopping activities.
RSS is stuck, lately, because of lack of agreement among the vendors about what RSS is. Both Blogger and Movable Type went with RDF as their default form of RSS, as the non-RDF version was becoming the consensus. Blogger's change happened within the last few weeks. I have no idea why they did it, I have asked privately, and then publicly. The format refuses to coalesce into a single easy to support format. I've seen sites that point to my spec while they implement the RDF format, and wonder if they have any idea what's going on. I feel helpless to sort it out, every time I try, the flamers swoop in and make their accusations. People see my name in the middle of flames and assume I must be at least somewhat to blame. The flamers know how that works, very well.
Another trick that works is where people say there are seven different RSS formats. In some sense that's true, but RSS 0.91, 0.92 and 2.0 are really the same format, and 0.93 and 0.94 even if they had been deployed widely (they weren't) are also the same format. So that means that five of the seven can be collapsed down to one. The remaining two formats, 0.90 and 1.0, are different from the 0.91-inspired thread and from each other. But 0.90 is hardly in use now, it was replaced quickly by 0.91 in 1999, there's not much 0.90 left. It certainly is not a concern for people producing RSS feeds in 2003, and for people writing aggregators, the same code can be used to read 0.90 and 1.0. In other words, for all practical purposes, there are two different forms of RSS, and they are very different. This is unfortunate, but the situation is nowhere near as bad as some people say it is.
Now, in some ways we absolutely are not stuck. The vast majority appears ready to go with RSS 2.0. Just a few holdouts, some who flame and some with considerable installed bases, make the difference. There are lots of great examples of simple easy RSS 2.0 feeds. The people producing them get more flow for their ideas, the people who read them are able to use the Internet far more effectively. There are many reasons to be excited about where RSS is and where it's going. And if we could simplify RSS even more, then there's absolutely nothing stopping RSS from going all the way.
There are effective ways to help move RSS toward consensus. We need a steady stream of reasoned advocacy and evangelism on behalf of RSS, to counteract the flames. We can't be against anything, we have to be for more syndicated content, and more publishers, small and large, being effective through syndication. The First Amendment on the Web. The Internet & Society. Those are our causes, they are positive ones. We're not trying to stop people from syndicating with other formats. In a perfect world, no one would be stopping people from syndicating with RSS 2.0. But it's not that perfect world. Study the Linux Advocacy Howto. It's a classic, perfect for any community on a mission to create new cool stuff.
What can you do to help? If you'd like to write a testimonial for RSS, or the Blogger API, or MetaWeblog API, please do so, and send me a pointer. I think it's time for developers to hear from other developers and users who would like continuous evolution, and respectful cooperation among developers, vendors and users.
Question: Dave, do you understand namespaces?
Yes I do. Flamers say I don't to help distract from the serious discussions we should be having about how to create a great user experience in syndication and aggregation.
Question: Why have you always been against namespaces in RSS?
Some people have said that, but it's not true.
I think namespaces belong in RSS, honestly I've always thought so, but I foresaw a sequence of events that would make namespaces successful in RSS, not just an appendage that introduces complexity with little benefit.
Namespaces make the format more difficult for less technical people. Read Zeldman's critique of RSS 2.0 for an idea of why that's important.
RSS has namespaces now, please use them, but use them sparingly, when they're really necessary, not just to make your feed more interesting to people who find XML interesting for its own sake. Keep in mind that people will View Source your feed and use it as an example for their feeds. If we want to encourage people to use RSS, the simpler your feed, the easier it is to understand, the more it interoperates, the more likely they are to actually be able to complete the project and be pleased with the result.
Further, test your feed with one or more of the aggregators and readers that claim to support RSS 2.0, and if you have problems, work with the community to resolve them.
Question: Hey I heard about this Mr Safe guy. What do you know about him?
I had a talk with Mr Safe on 7/3/03.
|
|
Michael Bernstein - Re: What does "funky" mean in the context of RSS 2.0?
6/30/2003; 7:11:47 PM (reads: 19042, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Post deleted, and reposted in the appropriate place. Sorry for the mess. -Michael
|
|
|
|
