How about if I answer this, instead?

It really would be an interesting question (at least to me), if anyone wanted to try answering it. Or for that matter, the closely related “RSS 1.0 extension that requires invalid RDF” question.

2 Comments

Comment by Shelley #
2005-07-01 06:23:26

I came into Sam’s post to make comments about his assumption that if he returns invalid specification errors in the RSS validator, Apple will see the light and fix their stuff.

This is Apple we’re talking about — most damn arrogant company in the world.

But because I’m an RDF person, somehow this became about me saying this because I’m what? A proponent for RDF?

I couldn’t participate in the conversation, because everything I said, was filtered through your guys’ expectations.

Sam goes, well, I don’t want to do the whole syndication war thing again. That was not my bloody point! My bloody point was that when these big dogs grabbed RSS, the game has changed. And we can’t play by the same rules any more.

So I’ll give your question the same level of attention and regard you gave what I was trying to say.

 
Comment by Jacques Distler #
2005-07-01 07:39:51

I came into Sam’s post to make comments about his assumption that if he returns invalid specification errors in the RSS validator, Apple will see the light and fix their stuff.

Apple will fix their stuff if it’s in their interest to do so. In this case, I think it is in their interest to fix their spec, though I’m not sure Sam’s approach is necessarily the one to make them realize it.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <del datetime="" cite=""> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <i> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <kbd> <li> <ol> <p> <pre> <q cite=""> <samp> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul> in your comment.