It’s just data

The SSF Wiki

Rogers Cadenhead: Here's the new wiki, which contains the current RSS 2.0 specification: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/ssf/ Feel free to add comments.

Sam, motivations for doing this, and for offering to host it?  Is this explained earlier in the ssf-dev archives?

Posted by Mark at

Mark, the simple answer is: Rogers asked.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

RE: The SSF Wiki

Sam,
I haven't been following SSF-DEV (although I probably will start in the next few weeks) and I am curious about what seems to be contradictory wording.


The Site Syndication Format development list is a moderated short-term mailing list for the discussion of ambiguities in the RSS 2.0 specification. The goal is to develop a new specification from scratch,

Is it a brand new spec from scratch or a some sort of RSS++? There are only two things I see as being major issues with RSS; the lack of a namespace and clarification what the content of the core elements should be. There is perhaps the added need to describe the most commonly used extension elements such as dc:date and slash:comments  but that is not as significant an issue.

I pinged the RSS advisory board folks yesterday and the impression I got is that anyone can now do this but they'd prefer if the work isn't called RSS. Since I see such a document as being primarily a description of current practice in the RSS world I have no problem with it not being called RSS but instead something like "The Annotated RSS 2.0 Specification: A Description of the Current State of the Art in Site Syndication".

I was going to start on this after I got out a new release of BlogX then remembered the SSF-DEV folks. So I guess what I am asking is whether what I described is what SSF-DEV has in mind or something different?

Message from Dare Obasanjo at

The SSF Wiki. Rogers Cadenhead: Here's the new wiki, which contains the current RSS 2.0 specification: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/ssf/ Feel free to add comments. [Sam Ruby]...

Excerpt from Andre Venter: Dev at

The SSF Wiki. Rogers Cadenhead: Here's the new wiki, which contains the current RSS 2.0 specification: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/ssf/ Feel free to add comments. [Sam Ruby]...

Excerpt from EPimntl: WebServices at

Dare: That's my take on what Rogers has written. To the best of my understanding, the SSF will try to clear up the outstanding issues with RSS 2.0. The results will be submitted to a relevant body for possible inclusion in a canonical RSS spec. If they're rejected, they can be published as a profile of RSS, or a new spec with a new name.

Posted by Roger Benningfield at

Actually, the new RSS spec license permits derivative works without changing the name, so anyone could simply create a new spec that said whatever they wanted and call it "RSS 2.0", as long as they used the same license and didn't remove the original copyright.

This was discussed recently with the members of Dave's advisory board, and they seemed unconcerned about it.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/discuss/msgReader$45?mode=day

In other words, SSF-DEV (and anyone else) has now been given the extraordinary privilege of rewriting the spec to say whatever they want, without needing permission from anyone.  Or more precisely, they have already been given permission.

Thought RSS was confusing before?  Expect to see an explosion of specs, all called "RSS".

You are in a twisty maze of specifications, all alike...

Posted by Mark at

RE: The SSF Wiki

Yup, Mark is right. Based on the Creative Commons license used by the Harvard spec anyone can write their own derivation of the RSS spec.

However nothing stopped anyone from doing this in the past (e.g. write your own intepretation of the spec). Instead people were more interested in engaging in flame wars with Dave than making progress. Now that he's said "Fine, anyone can fork the spec." that's a bad thing as well.

Just goes to show you can't please everyone. :)

Message from Dare Obasanjo at

Dare, I was responding directly to Roger, who was (incorrectly) implying that SSF-DEV had to "submit" their work to anyone for "approval".  My point is simply that they already have permission to rewrite the spec, and publish their own version under the same license.  They also do not need to use a new name.

Given the history of RSS (Dave going ballistic when RSS 1.0 came out and used the name "RSS"), I find this new license surprising, to say the least.

Posted by Mark at

The original goal of SSF-DEV was to write an RSS 2.0 specification from scratch that clarified the existing format. We didn't have the option of revising the existing spec, which was under UserLand's copyright.

Now that the spec is under a Creative Commons license that permits reuse with attribution, we're free to work from the existing spec.

Although SSF-DEV could be used to create a new syndication format or a third format under the RSS name, I personally regard both of those as horrible outcomes.

At this point, what I'm hoping we accomplish is to provide a better spec that the RSS 2.0 advisory board can either adopt or borrow from. Failing that, we could end up with a "best practices" document that RSS 2.0 implementors could use to supplement the spec.

Posted by Rogers Cadenhead at

I didn't occur to me until after I had joined ssf-dev, commented twice, logged into the wiki, did a little wiki gardening, including copy-n-pasting the charter from the mail list that included "Members of the list should be developers who have written software that produces or consumes RSS 2.0", that, duh, I've never written any software that produces or consumes RSS 2.0 (in the sense that it understands 2.0's new elements and namespaces, not in the sense that 0.9x software "counts" as 2.0 software).

I've unsubscribed from the list and will abstain from wiki edits until I hear otherwise.

Aside, Rogers: email to you bounces and I've not received an ack from comments on your website form.  Are those getting through?

Posted by Ken MacLeod at

RE: The SSF Wiki

Roger,

At this point, what I'm hoping we accomplish is to provide a better spec that the RSS 2.0 advisory board can either adopt or borrow from.

The official RSS spec is frozen and Dave has mentioned that the RSS advisory board formed by him is independent. There is no longer a need (if there ever was) to get Dave Winer's approval before working on a spec related to RSS. I'm really surprised by what seems to be an obsession with Dave Winer by many of the parties involved in this affair?

PS: I think a wiki is one of the least optimal ways to design/author a technical specification. I was ambivalent before the Pie/Echo/Necho/Atom experiment but now after seeing it in action I am extremely skeptical of a technical specification writing process that involves

Message from Dare Obasanjo at

The only thing *I* wanted from Dave was acknowledgement that the Atom project respects the roadmap he laid out in the RSS 2.0 spec ("all subsequent work should occur in namespaces, or in new formats with new names").  He has acknowledged on multiple occasions that Atom is a new format with a new name, so I'm happy.

If y'all want to bicker about ambiguities in RSS, Godspeed.  I co-maintain the feed validator, so I'll directly benefit from clearing up RSS ambiguities and establishing best practices.  We've been trying to do that for almost a year now, without success.  If somebody else wants to try for a while, that's great.  Lotsa luck.

Posted by Mark at

Though there's no requirement to work with the RSS 2.0 advisory board, pragmatically it makes a lot more sense to work with them than to compete. Our goals are compatible -- incremental improvement of RSS 2.0 -- and two of the three members have participated in SSF-DEV.

Posted by Rogers Cadenhead at

Rogers (still not aware I'm reaching you via other means), can you create a page of open issues, with status and links (on or off wiki) to problem statements and proposals?  I can point to examples from W3C and other places if you need them.

Posted by Ken MacLeod at

WWMSS -- What Would Mr. Safe Say?

I'd say that he'd probably be more confused about what he should do than ever. This is getting quite silly. This is just further proof that it's not the technology that's broken, but the folks who are working on it....... [more]

Trackback from snellspace

at

"Thought RSS was confusing before?  Expect to see an explosion of specs, all called "RSS"."

And one called Atom :)

Posted by Randy Charles Morin at

Mark:

Dare, I was responding directly to Roger, who was (incorrectly) implying that SSF-DEV had to "submit" their work to anyone for "approval".

Nah, I wasn't trying to imply anything... I was just describing what I understood to be Rogers C.'s plans, derived from his public statements. From his later comments, it looks like I was vaguely in the ballpark.

Rogers:

Failing that, we could end up with a "best practices" document that RSS 2.0 implementors could use to supplement the spec.

If all the SSF-DEV effort produces is a useful profile of some sort, your energies will have been well spent. And if any tweaks make it into the Berkman Spec, hey, that's gravy as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Roger Benningfield at

This is the wiki for the Site Syndication Format mailing list

Quote: "The Site Syndication Format development list is a moderated short-term mailing list for the discussion of ambiguities in the RSS 2.0 specification. The goal is to develop a new specification from scratch, code-named "Site Syndication...

Excerpt from iBLOGthere4iM at

New wiki for RSS 2.0 tinkering

Thanks to Sam Ruby, the SSF-DEV mailing list now has a wiki where a draft RSS 2.0 specification can be created. This work is unofficial -- the new RSS 2.0 advisory board is actively working on the format -- but I am hoping that it will lead to...

Excerpt from Workbench at

With plenty of due respect to Rogers and the SSF folks, I think the latest RSS confusion is just another reason why we need The Project.

I disagree with Dare, the Wiki might not be perfect, but it has allowed major progress in a very short space of time. I'm not sure what he considers optimal, but I'd be amazed to find something significantly better. It'll be interesting to see if/what difference the syntax mailing list makes.

The only place there seems to be real process trouble so far is in deciding the name...

Posted by Danny at

Christian Romney

My only gripe about wikis in general is their navigation. As far as the art of navigating hypertext has progressed in the past 5 years, wiki navigation is an utter embarassment.

Message from Christian Romney at

The SSF Wiki. Rogers Cadenhead: Here's the new wiki, which contains the current RSS 2.0 specification: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/ssf/ Feel free to add comments. [Sam Ruby]...

Excerpt from EPimntl: Blogging at

New wiki for RSS 2.0 tinkering

Thanks to Sam Ruby , the SSF-DEV mailing list now has a wiki where a draft RSS 2.0 specification can be created.... [more]

Trackback from Workbench

at

I think that you should look at this blog post  https://admission-writer.com/blog/admissions-committee for some useful tips on how to handle the future appointments. Good luck

Posted by Lisa Abrams at

Add your comment