rss-board at Yahoo! Groups

Re: Revising the RSSCloud Interface

randymorin — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:54:26 GMT

IMHO, I don't understand how anybody thinks that rssCloud could possibly work. There's simply too many scenarios where the spec fails. See scenarios of failure

Re: Revising the RSSCloud Interface

Rogers — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:28:54 GMT

... If we defer to Dave, he will control RSSCloud and the most likely outcome is that the spec will be imprecise, he will declare it frozen and we won't be in

Re: Revising the RSSCloud Interface

Paul Querna — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:38:32 GMT

... I agree that the process of creating a spec unilaterally by a single (or even small group of people!) is not a good thing. I don't believe 'we' as the RSS

Re: Revising the RSSCloud Interface

scamden — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:25:36 GMT

You've pretty much summed up my feelings on it. I think this is a responsibility that the Board should take on. I do think that Winer's changes have merit,

Re: Revising the RSSCloud Interface

rcade — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:54:14 GMT

I've written my thoughts on the subject on my blog. http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/3559 The short version is that one person should not be allowed to

Revising the RSSCloud Interface

rcade — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:37:37 GMT

As you probably know, Dave Winer's been working to revive the cloud element in RSS and the RSSCloud Interface that defines how it is used. These date back to

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

Randy Morin — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:26:03 GMT

All the amendments are approved. Voting Results were 7-0 in favor. For: Querna,Camdem,Parman,Cadenhead,Holderness,Carletti,Morin Against: none Didn't vote:

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

Randy Morin — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:43:53 GMT

I vote in favor of the edits

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

Simone Carletti — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:03:54 GMT

I vote +1 for all changes. I just want to share my 2cents about the following edit. ... [10] are extremely short. I'd like to bring them into the

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

James Holderness — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:15:20 GMT

... In the interests of completeness, I noticed another difference between the two versions of the enclosure use-case document:

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

rcade — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:04:52 GMT

I vote yes for the proposal.

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

Ryan Parman — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:23:51 GMT

+1 -- Ryan Parman On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:41 PM, "scamden"

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

scamden — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:41:22 GMT

I vote in favor of all of these proposed edits.

Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

Paul Querna — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:22:54 GMT

I vote +1 for these changes. Thanks, Paul

Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

rcade — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:09:31 GMT

Today begins the seven-day vote on the six proposed admin edits to the RSS spec. I've restated the proposal in full here: I'd like the board to consider some