Robert Scoble: what really is cooking here is that RSS has been moved to big companies to control.
Apparently a previous draft said “stolen”.
Whether Scoble meant actively stolen, or simply moved, either imply that the spec isn’t where it used to be. A quick Google, Yahoo!, or Windows Live search reveals that it still is where it has been for over 4 years.
Oh, and as to the recent spec “clarification” that was recently made to the alternate specification that also happens to call itself RSS 2.0? FeedBurner’s CTO voted against it.
Scoble: "They tried to get the world to switch to Atom, failed. and now are coming back to mess with RSS. Again."
Ha! I love it. Seriously, I really do not understand why these people do this to themselves. RSS, even with it’s many bugs, is perfectly well suited for the simple blog and news content distribution use cases for which it was defined so long as there are clearly documented best practices available. The profile work the RSS board is doing it far more valuable than adding four new words and moving examples around.
“I read the [Robert Scoble] post twice and could not understand why Feedburner is trouble.”
No seriously, no-one is actually saying what the problem is and I’m such an outsider I had to go and see what Feedburner actually does.
If I had to guess I’d say that outsourcing your feeds to a 3rd party means that third party can easily upgrade to a different RSS version, or even to Atom. I can see why that would be bad for Dave Winer, but I don’t understand Scoble’s point, nor how it would be so terrible Feedburner’s customers.
When I first started reading about this, I thought I stumbled over an old thread from years ago . But this is all new. Apparently, Dave is upset about FeedBurner and Google. So now someone at Google “owns” Feedburner and all their feeds. And they...