Renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF

[rcade]

The existence of two similar but incompatible formats that call
themselves RSS is a persistent problem for everyone who supports these
formats, whether they're involved in RSS 1.0 or RSS 2.0.

As RSS adoption has grown, RSS 2.0 has built a huge lead on RSS 1.0,
from the looks of the version stats published at Syndic8. Here's the
numbers, based on today's page and pages archived by the Internet Archive:

Today: RSS 2.0 76.3%, RSS 1.0 11.3%

Feb. 2006: RSS 2.0 68.3%, RSS 1.0 17.6%

March 2005: RSS 2.0 62.1%, RSS 1.0 16.5%

December 2004: RSS 2.0 49.2%, RSS 1.0 20.6%

April 2004: RSS 2.0 24.6%, RSS 1.0 47.3%

We can debate the reasons why, but my guess is that the higher version
number is as much a factor as anything else. I anticipate that RSS 2.0
will continue to grow relative to RSS 1.0 because of Microsoft's
choice to normalize to RSS 2.0 in Windows Vista and MSIE.

When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
had majority support here -- the final result was 11 yes, 11 no:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260

I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
name change or a more involved process?

Although I'm on the RSS Advisory Board, I think that the three
syndication formats each has a strong selling point:

- RSS 2.0 is simple, loose and popular

- Atom is an Internet standard that's more adaptable to uses outside
site syndication

- RSS 1.0 builds on RDF

I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF. The name change would
highlight the format's implementation of RDF and give the rival RSSes
some breathing room.

On a personal note, it would also make it considerably easier for me
to describe your format in various things I write for the RSS board.
It's tough for me to say anything about RSS 1.0 on our site because of
the potential for newbie confusion. People assume it's a previous
iteration of RSS 2.0, not a different format that shares a common
ancestor.

I've e-mailed the authors of the RSS 1.0 spec to see if there's an
opportunity here.

[Bill Kearney]

Post by rcade
I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
name change or a more involved process?

Yes you are, and no there's not.





Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:rss-dev-digest-***@public.gmane.org
mailto:rss-dev-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rss-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[rcade]

Post by Bill Kearney
Yes you are, and no there's not.

I've pinged RSS 1.0's authors along with several of the working group
members who joined afterward.

RSS 1.0 would do better, marketing wise, under the name RSS for the
Resource Definition Framework (RSS-RDF). You've already got RDF in the
format's name, but it's being lost in the Really Simple Syndication
hype, from the looks of the Syndic8 numbers.

Additionally, RDF Site Summary is a bit of a misnomer for a
syndication format that does more than summarize web site content in XML.

If one of the goals of RSS 1.0 is the furtherance of RDF, how does it
help to be mistaken for a past version of RSS 2.0?

[Bill Kearney]

Post by rcade

Post by Bill Kearney
Yes you are, and no there's not.

I've pinged RSS 1.0's authors along with several of the working group
members who joined afterward.
RSS 1.0 would do better, marketing wise, under the name RSS for the
Resource Definition Framework (RSS-RDF).

Ah yeah, right. Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes the
originator's responsibility to change their name? No way.

You, of all people, know better than to play this game.




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:rss-dev-digest-***@public.gmane.org
mailto:rss-dev-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rss-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[rcade]

Post by Bill Kearney
Ah yeah, right. Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes
the originator's responsibility to change their name? No way.

I'm not suggesting that the RSS-DEV Working Group is obligated to
change the name of RSS 1.0 because of confusion with RSS 2.0.

I'm suggesting that RSS 1.0 would benefit from the name change,
because it's getting overlooked in confusion with RSS 2.0.

Your working group's in a position to rename RSS 1.0 because you own
the copyright to the specification and have a respected, six-year-old
public process for making changes to it.

The advisory board's in no position to rename RSS 2.0. If we did, I'm
certain it would be treated by the public as a third branch of RSS.

You've followed the board's work this year. We've promoted Atom and
RSS 1.0. Every page of our site links to yours.

The version number fight was unfortunate, but I feel like this is a
win-win solution. Recasting RDF Site Summary (RSS) as RSS for the
Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF) is like Dave Winer's decision
to start calling RSS 0.9x/2.0 Really Simple Syndication. The name
helps sell the public on the format.

If you adopted the name RSS for the Resource Description Framework,
RSS 1.0 could still call itself RSS *and* gain the more specific name
RSS-RDF. You're already the No. 1 result for that term in Google:

http://masl.to/?B48021D5E

Where's the downside here?

[rcade]

Post by Bill Kearney
Ah yeah, right. Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes
the originator's responsibility to change their name? No way.

I have a longer reply in Yahoo Groups limbo. In case it doesn't make
it, here's the short version:

The RSS-DEV Working Group has no responsibility to change RSS 1.0's
name because of confusion with RSS 2.0. I think a name change would
enable RSS 1.0 to reach a bigger audience and clear up the
version-related confusion in RSS.

Calling it RSS for the Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF) lets
you still descrive the format as RSS while gaining a more specific
name that capitalizes on the association with RDF.

[Jon Hanna]

RDF Site Summary-RDF?

RDF, so good they named it twice? :)

[rcade]

Post by Jon Hanna
RDF Site Summary-RDF?
RDF, so good they named it twice? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of RSS for the Resource Description
Framework (RSS-RDF), but I'm enough of a dork to appreciate a
recursive acronym like GNU's Not UNIX.

[Alan Dean]

Post by rcade
I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF.

How about "RDF-Syndication"?

Alan Dean

[g***@public.gmane.org]

If renaming becomes a reality, I would suggest that the new name should
NOT have an embedded dash in the name (e.g., RSSRDF, RSSrdf or rssrdf
instead of RSS-RDF).

-Gary Berosik

________________________________

From: rss-dev-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:rss-dev-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf
Of rcade
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:32 PM
To: rss-dev-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [RSS-DEV] Renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF



The existence of two similar but incompatible formats that call
themselves RSS is a persistent problem for everyone who supports these
formats, whether they're involved in RSS 1.0 or RSS 2.0.

As RSS adoption has grown, RSS 2.0 has built a huge lead on RSS 1.0,
from the looks of the version stats published at Syndic8. Here's the
numbers, based on today's page and pages archived by the Internet
Archive:

Today: RSS 2.0 76.3%, RSS 1.0 11.3%

Feb. 2006: RSS 2.0 68.3%, RSS 1.0 17.6%

March 2005: RSS 2.0 62.1%, RSS 1.0 16.5%

December 2004: RSS 2.0 49.2%, RSS 1.0 20.6%

April 2004: RSS 2.0 24.6%, RSS 1.0 47.3%

We can debate the reasons why, but my guess is that the higher version
number is as much a factor as anything else. I anticipate that RSS 2.0
will continue to grow relative to RSS 1.0 because of Microsoft's
choice to normalize to RSS 2.0 in Windows Vista and MSIE.

When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
had majority support here -- the final result was 11 yes, 11 no:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260>

I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
name change or a more involved process?

Although I'm on the RSS Advisory Board, I think that the three
syndication formats each has a strong selling point:

- RSS 2.0 is simple, loose and popular

- Atom is an Internet standard that's more adaptable to uses outside
site syndication

- RSS 1.0 builds on RDF

I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF. The name change would
highlight the format's implementation of RDF and give the rival RSSes
some breathing room.

On a personal note, it would also make it considerably easier for me
to describe your format in various things I write for the RSS board.
It's tough for me to say anything about RSS 1.0 on our site because of
the potential for newbie confusion. People assume it's a previous
iteration of RSS 2.0, not a different format that shares a common
ancestor.

I've e-mailed the authors of the RSS 1.0 spec to see if there's an
opportunity here.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Eric van der Vlist]

Hi,

Le mardi 12 décembre 2006 à 03:32 +0000, rcade a écrit :

.../...

Post by rcade
When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260
I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
name change or a more involved process?

As far as I remember, this poll reflects the mixed feelings that we had
about changing our name and what did make the difference is that we had,
among the group, some of the original authors of RSS 0.9 who said they
cared about keeping that name.

Their point was that RSS 1.0 was carrying more of the original
motivations and design principles of RSS than the other branch and
AFAIK, this is still true.

I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered if we
ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we could
justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.

What about asking to Tim Berners-Lee if he wouldn't mind changing the
name "Web" (as in "Web 1.0") because it's causing confusions with Web
2.0 :) ?

Eric
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Lisez-moi sur XMLfr.
http://xmlfr.org/index/person/eric+van+der+vlist/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:rss-dev-digest-***@public.gmane.org
mailto:rss-dev-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rss-dev-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[rcade]

Post by Eric van der Vlist
I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.

Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
highly unlikely.

I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors and current working group
members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.

This working group is in pretty deep hibernation. I'd be surprised if
anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.

[rcade]

So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking
effort! Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you
wonder why there's silence.

Calling it a threat presumes that withholding my future proposals
would be some form of punishment to the working group.

As I said, it's just where I'm at as one person who has twice brought
stuff to the group only to experience an "is this microphone on?" moment.

As for the "who owns RSS?" argument, that's a can of worms I've
already opened too many times.

[Cecelia Hickel]

To All

I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have needed one for some time. However, the focus of this group has been on other matters. So I decided instead of being pegged right away as a newbie and interrupt development matters, to remain silent and hope for bits of knowledge along the way to help me work through my own development issues. But as a newbie, I fully agree that things are still confusing and I would never try and point any blame on this to anyone. I am just trying to learn all that I can about RDF and in particular extending RDF RSS 1.0.

RSS is almost always associated with News and rightly so. However, RSS 1.0 can be extended for many other purposes and I find this a very good thing. However, I need better understanding and information on how an extended RSS 1.0 is "served" using modules. How do RSS parsers read and treat modules, what is necessary to ensure validations/checks. While I can extend, what about the application? The tools? The official stamp of acceptance for modules and have the "proposed" status now approved. I find that this "proposed staus lead me to believe that the work was being abandoned for new ATOM developments and RSS 2.0. But then I had to learn that they were XML and RDF. So the question was then, what about the approval of all those proposed modules? Was that work dropped from lack of time in the day? The need to grow new members? Or was it always intended to approve these at some point
but has not yet happened?

The discussion that took place a couple of months ago sparked some of my own questions. I can see that all sides have good points and I would not wish to change the name but I also make reference to RSS 1.0 as RDF-RSS 1.0 when I write something or discuss it. I use RDF first like others put the "X" in front of everything XML. It is confusing these differences. It has confused me until I finally found some answers oin the matter and as a relatively new user I must say I feel I have had to sort and sift through all the cruft to try and rap my mind around what is true and what isn't true.

I feel all of you have worked very hard and been extremely dedicated. I also know personally what it feels like to have another lay claim on all your hard work and even go as far to feel they are justified. But for the benefit of those who actually need a business success using the RSS 1.0 for successfully because it is RDF, how about formally placing some stamps of approval on the many deserving proposed modules? Hopefully such an act would promote new tool developments for using RSS 1.0.

RSS 1.0 is not dead, it is unchanged, and it is neglected. Modules and RDF are a valuable tool at this time for the Web 2.0 and Semantic web efforts.The freedom to extend RSS 1.0 using RDF is why some attention is needed on approving the modules. An approved specification is important as you all know.

I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if I write a good module for instance. How many others have already decided that RSS 1.0 is deprecated as can be found written as a statment of fact on blogs. There is nothing "official" to their statements, only observations which seem to allude to that conclusion. It is becoming the concensus which means in reality it is losing its market share,a necessary evil for a funded development and successful Internet implementations.

I am suggesting that approving the prosposed modules previously submitted would turn things around, catch things up, and bring new energy to RDF, some newly placed importance and limelight for RSS 1.0 because it is a proven RDF technology, and hopefully new support, new tools, new applications, new articless, maybe new technical documents/resources, etc.. It could be a good time this time around.

Regards to all.
Cecelia

thus far has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's
been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS. It's no
wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.

I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

Bingo.

But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
RSS 1.0 any more.

I don't share that assumption.

I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
the future.

So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
silence.

Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
touching it. Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
AGAIN. You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
can be.

Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name. And it's not this group's fault.
This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
follow along with theft of it. Does the fact their stolen property
(reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
the orignal effort of it's name. No reasonable person would think so.

As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
will apply. There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
ownship of the RSS name. That dog just won't hunt.

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com




Yahoo! Groups Links






Cecelia Hickel
cjhickel-/***@public.gmane.org

---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Cecelia Hickel]

To All

I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have needed one for some time. However, the focus of this group has been on other matters. So I decided instead of being pegged right away as a newbie and interrupt development matters, to remain silent and hope for bits of knowledge along the way to help me work through my own development issues. But as a newbie, I fully agree that things are still confusing and I would never try and point any blame on this to anyone. I am just trying to learn all that I can about RDF and in particular extending RDF RSS 1.0.

RSS is almost always associated with News and rightly so. However, RSS 1.0 can be extended for many other purposes and I find this a very good thing. However, I need better understanding and information on how an extended RSS 1.0 is "served" using modules. How do RSS parsers read and treat modules, what is necessary to ensure validations/checks. While I can extend, what about the application? The tools? The official stamp of acceptance for modules and have the "proposed" status now approved. I find that this "proposed staus lead me to believe that the work was being abandoned for new ATOM developments and RSS 2.0. But then I had to learn that they were XML and RDF. So the question was then, what about the approval of all those proposed modules? Was that work dropped from lack of time in the day? The need to grow new members? Or was it always intended to approve these at some point
but has not yet happened?

The discussion that took place a couple of months ago sparked some of my own questions. I can see that all sides have good points and I would not wish to change the name but I also make reference to RSS 1.0 as RDF-RSS 1.0 when I write something or discuss it. I use RDF first like others put the "X" in front of everything XML. It is confusing these differences. It has confused me until I finally found some answers oin the matter and as a relatively new user I must say I feel I have had to sort and sift through all the cruft to try and rap my mind around what is true and what isn't true.

I feel all of you have worked very hard and been extremely dedicated. I also know personally what it feels like to have another lay claim on all your hard work and even go as far to feel they are justified. But for the benefit of those who actually need a business success using the RSS 1.0 for successfully because it is RDF, how about formally placing some stamps of approval on the many deserving proposed modules? Hopefully such an act would promote new tool developments for using RSS 1.0.

RSS 1.0 is not dead, it is unchanged, and it is neglected. Modules and RDF are a valuable tool at this time for the Web 2.0 and Semantic web efforts.The freedom to extend RSS 1.0 using RDF is why some attention is needed on approving the modules. An approved specification is important as you all know.

I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if I write a good module for instance. How many others have already decided that RSS 1.0 is deprecated as can be found written as a statment of fact on blogs. There is nothing "official" to their statements, only observations which seem to allude to that conclusion. It is becoming the concensus which means in reality it is losing its market share,a necessary evil for a funded development and successful Internet implementations.

I am suggesting that approving the prosposed modules previously submitted would turn things around, catch things up, and bring new energy to RDF, some newly placed importance and limelight for RSS 1.0 because it is a proven RDF technology, and hopefully new support, new tools, new applications, new articless, maybe new technical documents/resources, etc.. It could be a good time this time around.

Regards to all.
Cecelia

thus far has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's
been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS. It's no
wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.

I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

Bingo.

But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
RSS 1.0 any more.

I don't share that assumption.

I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
the future.

So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
silence.

Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
touching it. Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
AGAIN. You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
can be.

Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name. And it's not this group's fault.
This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
follow along with theft of it. Does the fact their stolen property
(reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
the orignal effort of it's name. No reasonable person would think so.

As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
will apply. There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
ownship of the RSS name. That dog just won't hunt.

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com




Yahoo! Groups Links






Cecelia Hickel
cjhickel-/***@public.gmane.org

---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jon Hanna]

Post by Cecelia Hickel
I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if
I write a good module for instance.

Frankly, and while I have every psychological motivation to believe
otherwise, I would be pessimistic in this regard.

However. Would your module be useful in either other RDF efforts or ATOM
as well?

Would it be useful for you at least?

I'm pretty pessimistic about things, but I certainly don't want to
dissuade a fellow hacker from doing good work.

[Cecelia Hickel]

To be a little clearer, and certainly not insulting, some years back several modules were being discussed and proposed, some from within your own group. The work this group has accomplished since that time apparently took the focus from modules and development/approving them to Atom. There are only so many hours in a day...however, the modules which can be beneficial( and would have perhaps proven timely for adoption) are needing an approval by this group to cultivate wider gain and acceptance for RDF and Web 2.0.

It goes without saying how important this is. So whether I achieve something more useful to the greater RDF deployments or not, at this date and time there is no active practice of submitting a module to this group for review and gaining approval. There is no recent evidence of such work in progress.

Does this keep me from writing something useful for myself? Not really. But would it not be better if developers had a voice with this commitee for their needs and then that in itself was beneficial for RDF and Atom cultivations?

I have been hoping for several years to see RSS 1.0 plus modules become a focus for extending semantic web interoperations and simplifying web services. Now we have SOA developments in full swing and what are the planned developments for RSS 1.0 for SOAs?

Could the RSS-DEV group at least state a position on their intentions for approving proposed modules? Or perhaps shed some light on planned or considered future work for RSS 1.0? Is the work better split off in two groups?(of course all work under the same roof).

Post by Cecelia Hickel
I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if
I write a good module for instance.

Frankly, and while I have every psychological motivation to believe
otherwise, I would be pessimistic in this regard.

However. Would your module be useful in either other RDF efforts or ATOM
as well?

Would it be useful for you at least?

I'm pretty pessimistic about things, but I certainly don't want to
dissuade a fellow hacker from doing good work.






Cecelia Hickel
cjhickel-/***@public.gmane.org

---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]