Quick Postscript on the Microsoft Announcement
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Really Simple Syndication Everything new about RSS 2.0. Saturday, June 25, 2005 Quick postscript on the Microsoft announcement I read Phil Ringnalda's post last night at 1AM after getting back from the schmooze, and I pretty much agree with what he said about the Microsoft extensions to RSS 2.0. I had not looked at the Microsoft format until it was publicly announced yesterday. Some people in the comments on my note before the announcement said I had done something wrong by working with Microsoft on enhancements to RSS 2.0 privately without others in the loop. I actually agree with this appraisal, with one caveat, that's exactly why I didn't look at the proposal until it was publicly announced. I had my first look at it yesterday, at the same time everyone else outside of Microsoft did. In fact because I spent the day and night at a conference, I have had even less time to figure out how it works. To be fair to Microsoft, if these enhancements weren't so odd, in the way they give elements dual roles depending on their context, and by putting standard RSS 2.0 elements in new contexts where they mean something other than what they mean in their current context, I would encourage people to stand back and let it go. As I said in the session yesterday, "this is what movement looks like." But I think Microsoft ought to read the feedback carefully, in Phil's post and what shows up elsewhere, and come up with a simpler way to do what they want to do. I think it's quite possible to do that. When these discussions started, on April 23, I first tried to understand their objectives, and then made a recommendation, and when it was clear they wanted to go another way, I decided to wait until the public announcement to look at the expression of their idea. Based on a quick look, in its current form I don't think I will write feeds that generate the extensions or write code that processes them. However, I also want to be clear that I support the idea of Microsoft extending RSS 2.0, I am glad they're using it, very glad, and I totally appreciate that they are trying to work with the community on equal terms with everyone else. Yesterday in a video I recorded for the members of Team RSS at Microsoft, I congratulated them on a home run, and said I was totally proud of how they did it. Now here's an opportunity to make that home run a grand slam. With some quick work, while there still is no installed base, we can arrive at something that works for everyone and is as really simple as RSS 2.0 is. Update 3:30PM Pacific: I just spoke with Amar Gandhi and Sean Lyndersay of Microsoft at Gnomedex. They'll revise their spec in response to concerns reported by Phil Ringnalda. This turns yesterday's home run into a grand slam. # Posted by Dave Winer on 6/25/05; 10:21:53 AM - Comment [8] 1 From www.reallysimplesyndication.com/2005/06/25 27 June 2005 I guess this puts a nail in the coffin of Atom doesn't it? Whenever Microsoft endorses a technology, the competing stuff goes underground. People will argue otherwise, but the writing is on the tombstone for Atom. Oh, and Apple has had RSS in Safari for a year, and it ships with Tiger now. iTunes will have RSS in another month or so. Jim Armstrong • 6/25/05; 11:46:09 AM MS: "Longhorn will support all common RSS formats, including: RSS 1.0, 2.0 and Atom 0.3. We will support Atom 1.0 when it’s released." Perhaps Microsoft will discover that in the end it is easier and more productive working with a real standards body than it is working with Dave and thus decide to focus their attention on Atom or RSS 1.0 at the expense of RSS 2.0. scott • 6/25/05; 12:07:56 PM I see that Microsoft will be supporting Atom in Longhorn. I missed that in the first announcement. Making Longhorn backward compatible with RSS 1.0 and Atom makes sense. Jim Armstrong • 6/25/05; 3:07:22 PM Scott: dealing with one person is almost always easier than dealing with a group of people. Robert Scoble • 6/25/05; 6:36:21 PM We've posted to the RSS team blog on what we'd like to do with this feedback. The feedback and comments from Phil and Dave has been great: http://blogs.msdn.com/rssteam/archive/2005/06/25/432686.aspx - Sean Sean Lyndersay • 6/25/05; 7:43:08 PM Robert: You have a point. I just think that the best solutions come from democratic processes that include all interested parties. I have found that investing the time and resources required to sustain such a process is usually worth the effort. There is also knowledge to be gained from such a process. I like the list extensions MS has proposed. I think that they will serve me well whether they are implemented as is or with some tweaks. I just don't like the precedents that are being set. scott • 6/25/05; 8:49:17 PM Overcomplicating the essentially simple is surely Microsoft's raison d'etre, so it's like complaining that the sky is blue. Jim • 6/26/05; 11:03:19 AM Jim: I think you are probably on to something. I can only see this strategy of ad hoc RSS extension implementations resulting in a hodge-podge of semi-redundant RSS extension implementations. I suspect that the number of different design patterns that will be required to parse, style, and model this disparate markup syntax is going to become ridiculous. Could it be in Microsoft's interest to make this stuff complicated? Well, that way MS could justify its need to control the infrastructure by evangelizing the benefits of keeping it simple for developers. scott • 6/26/05; 12:56:59 PM 2 From www.reallysimplesyndication.com/2005/06/25 27 June 2005 .