History of the RSS fork. Grr.
This probably doesn’t interest 90% of my readers, but in the context of this, is quite interesting. {Also, some of my language in that post is more interesting, “the only really adopted use of RDF was rapidly and forcefully dropped on the scene” was meant to be complimentary, but from Dave W’s mouth would be a flame, I assume.}
I have been struggling for some time with SWIM’s data architecture. I am 95% ready to settle on RSS 1.0 as an initial data structure, because it will both serve most of my potential initial users’ needs and it complies with the most widely accepted format for the Semantic Web. And because of it’s complex namespace-based design, I can extend it (internally) in the future while still complying with the original spec. I just didn’t know I was choosing sides on such a vicious fight. It had never occurred to me what a big deal the different RSS specs were. One group/org spec’d RSS 9.x, another RSS 1.0. The acro RSS itself can mean diff things. I publish RSS 9.1. I’m building the next gen of that content system on RSS 1.0. Big f’n deal.