Tim Bray writes:
I am worried about the next-gen syndication process rooted in Sam’s Wiki is in danger of going seriously off the rails, because some of the participants have got the loony idea that it’s about trying to invent new technology or improve RSS.
What the Echo-that-was project should be about picking the stuff that’s already been proven to work and be interoperable, and writing it down in a clean, clear way, and arranging for the specification to be clearly out of the clutches of any vendor.
He then goes on to conclude:
In the Wiki, people are madly flinging proposals for radical new capabilities against the wall, like content-by-reference, and multiple-URIs-per-author and so on and so on ad nauseum and I’ll translate that Latin for free, it means to the puking point. Please stop.
Well put Tim. I have to agree. I've been a bit put off by some of the discussion and direction the Wiki has taken recently also. As I noted earlier when I proposed we consider the use of the Dublin Core that there seems to be a unhealthy desire to reinvent the wheel instead of working from the stuff that we have and building from there.
It not that the prior art is completely broken and worthless, as much as they are stuck in neutral – meaning not going forward – without clarification and some neutral less politically charged ground. So far that's been achieved. Let's
And for petesake can we settle on a name and quick wasting cycles on this!
(In case you missed, it was learned that Echo is the name of a Java application framework. Sam asked that projects leads if they cared and they said yes, they do. It's back to the drawing board now.)
UPDATE: Sam Ruby weighs in and has started an interesting thread on Bray's post with dicussion of what should and shouldn't be included in the core.
<p>Tim Bray <a href="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/06/27/NoInventions">writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am worried about the next-gen syndication process rooted in Sam’s Wiki is in danger of going seriously off the rails, because some of the participants have got the loony idea that it’s about trying to invent new technology or improve RSS.</p>
<p>What the Echo-that-was project should be about picking the stuff that’s already been proven to work and be interoperable, and writing it down in a clean, clear way, and arranging for the specification to be clearly out of the clutches of any vendor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He then goes on to conclude:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the Wiki, people are madly flinging proposals for radical new capabilities against the wall, like content-by-reference, and multiple-URIs-per-author and so on and so on ad nauseum and I’ll translate that Latin for free, it means to the puking point. Please stop.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well put Tim. I have to agree. I've been a bit put off by some of the discussion and direction the Wiki has taken recently also. As <a href="http://www.timaoutloud.org/archives/000302.html">I noted earlier when I proposed we consider the use of the Dublin Core</a> that there seems to be a unhealthy desire to reinvent the wheel instead of working from the stuff that we have and building from there. </p>
<p>It not that the prior art is completely broken and worthless, as much as they are stuck in neutral – meaning not going forward – without clarification and some neutral less politically charged ground. So far that's been achieved. Let's</p>
<p>And for petesake can we settle on a name and quick wasting cycles on this!</p>
<p>(In case you missed, it was learned that Echo is the name of a <a href="http://www.nextapp.com/products/echo/">Java application framework</a>. Sam <a href="http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=2664620&forum_id=8092">asked</a> that projects leads if they cared and they said <a href="http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=5378558">yes, they do</a>. It's back to the drawing board now.)</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE</strong>: <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1499.html">Sam Ruby weighs in</a> and has started an interesting thread on Bray's post with dicussion of what should and shouldn't be included in the core.</p>
Leave a comment