RE: We can't use RSD

["Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry, this sounds as barmy as any conspiracy theory. There's nothing in
Daniel Berlinger's posts to warrant such flaming, except perhaps the use of
"yuck", which I must admit sets alarm bells ringing. However, I do agree
with the conclusion, no RSD. I think the best approach is to write the
introspection part of the spec based on the requirements, rather than
compromise to what's already deployed. We don't need to use RSD.

Cheers,
Danny.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mark Pilgrim
> Sent: 09 August 2003 20:40
> To: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: We can't use RSD
>
>
>
> OK, I've now caught up with the mailing list archives, and I've come to
> the conclusion that Daniel Berlinger has single-handedly taken RSD off
> the table as a viable option.
>
> The spec is owned and controlled by a single person with a competitive
> interest in this space.  The spec currently lives on a server where that
> person has sole authorship rights.  Daniel has had plenty of time to
> submit it to any number of standards bodies, but he has chosen not to do
> so.  In fact, he has shown no apparent interest in changing the
> copyright or licensing situation at all until we decided not to use it
> in draft 7 (on technical grounds which have been publicly discussed in
> multiple places, see my previous message for references).  And now all
> of a sudden we hear some vague handwaving about Creative Commons and get
> accused of plotting a nefarious conspiracy to exclude him ("yuck").
>
> And, to drive the point home in an ironic fashion, I have been unable to
> view the spec because its server has been down for at least the past 12
> hours.  Whatever you may think of standards bodies such as the IETF, or
> spec-writing processes such as the Internet Draft/RFC process, at least
> their specs are available when I go Googling.
>
> Bottom line: this project can not afford to be held hostage by a
> conspiracy theorist with competitive interests.  We've been down that
> road; we know exactly where it leads.  Build on open standards, or don't
> bother building at all.
>
> -Mark Pilgrim
>