Winer ("Why Formats Like RSS 2.0 Work") says that stable standards enable risk taking, long term innovation and the investment of billions of dollars in development projects. For example, Winer says that Microsoft has been willing and able to support RSS in IE 7 over the long haul because the standard has remained consistent.Roberts ("Why formats like RSS 2.0 Create Extra Work") explains the unresolved questions in simple terms:
- What should you expect to find in the <description> field?
- Is one enclosure the maximum?
- Is markup allowed, not allowed, or optional in the <title> element?
The above points by Winer seem to me to be the most clear I've read yet, though not convincing enough for me. Hopefully the boatloads of nastiness throughout the discussion won't get in the way too much of these points being engaged with. And hopefully we'll see a more powerful and widely used RSS technology down the road, however that might emerge.
1. Too much money involved.
http://www.sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000975.html
"My assessment is: The Money Rules. It's clear that The Money is nervous. ... Any hint that there might be anything which casts doubt on the stability, primacy, readiness, usability, etc, of the great big asset they are trying to leverage, frightens The Money. It Will Not Be Allowed. ...
If you are able to somehow convey that you will sooth The Money, you serve The Money, you wish nothing more in life than to help The Money make even more money ... then maybe that'll work. Otherwise, the answer will remain that the specification license allows it to be used as a basis by other efforts, which is a very polite way of saying get lost."
Posted at 10:58PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Seth Finkelstein