Re: RDF redux

[Nadeem Bitar <nadim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is a step backward for Atom. I would prefer to stick with
the current Atom syntax and push to have the spec done. 

-nadeem

On Sun, 2004-03-28 at 20:46 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:

> I see some discussion going on in
> 
>    http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/RSSVote
> 
> I think such exploration is healthy, but personally would prefer that a 
> proposal more fully flushed out on the mailing list first.
> 
> This "RSSVote" suggests "abandons the current Atom syntax" yet "Some 
> Atom syntax elements not already present in RSS 1.0 would be added to 
> RSS 1.0 as a module extension.".  Which ones?
> 
> I'll offer the following as a guide for an initial checklist of things 
> to explore: http://www.intertwingly.net/slides/2003/xmlconf/ .  That 
> doesn't mean that any proposals need to come up with the same solutions, 
> or even accept all the same requirements, but it does provide a basis 
> for comparision.
> 
> - Sam Ruby