 | | Re: Attention all RSS geeks!
|
|
(...) That there are two methods on which we could base LENNI, and it's fairly apparent to me that one needs to be chosen over the other. Dual development is a hindrance in the long run. (...) Not this minute, but definitely soon. I think the next (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Attention all RSS geeks!
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger wrote: (a lot of very informative stuff that made my head spin a bit, although I now think I know which Dan favors which does carry some weight with me, Dan's often right, technically... ) So what's the net here? Does (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS vs. Atom (was: Attention All RSS Geeks)
|
|
(...) Adding tags to the spec isn't "expensive" - and since clients won't be required to implement support for new tags, unless they want to, I say, let's think of anything we can want, and then decide if it's worth adding to the spec or not. :) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Attention all RSS geeks!
|
|
(...) Heh, the biggest political fight of recent techies. Used to be XML, but that has settled down considerably. I used to follow the fight, but got really tired of it... I did come the conclusion that Mark Pilgrim (of the Atom side) knows what (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: RSS vs. Atom (was: Attention All RSS Geeks)
|
|
(...) Sorry about that, got distracted! Mostly BrickFest, some other things. Back on it again, and your email from 1 August was very helpful in setting the direction for LENNI. (...) I think both Atom and RSS as a base would allow us to do this. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish, FTX)
|
